Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

House of Commons (Painting)

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make.
During the past few years, several hon. Members have made representations to me and to the Leader of the House that a new painting of Members of the House in session should be commissioned. As the House may recall, the last painting of this kind was made in 1960.
After consulting the Leader of the House, who in turn has consulted the Services Committee, I have approved proposals for a new painting to be commissioned from Miss June Mendoza. Miss Mendoza will be given facilities to sketch from appropriate positions in and under the Galleries while the House is sitting. I understand that this preparatory work will begin very shortly.
The new painting will be financed from the sale of prints. There will be no cost to public funds. I should like to add my personal thanks to Sir Robert Cooke, special adviser to the Secretary of State for the Environment, for the part he has played in this project.

PETITION

Concessionary Television Licences

Mr. Jack Thompson: The petition that I ask the House to receive today complements the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) presented on Tuesday. It asks the House to consider a change in the concessionary arrangements for television licences for the elderly and housebound. It is in the names of Mr. John MacCormack and Mrs. Eunice MacCormack.
It gives me the greatest pleasure to present the petition, and I fully endorse the proposition.

Orders of the Day — Safety at Sea Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

IMMERSION SUITS

(1) A United Kingdom fishing vessel of 12 metres or more in length shall carry an immersion suit of an appropriate size for each person on board.

(2) The immersion suit shall comply with regulation 33 of the Consolidated Text of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, published on 1986.'[Dr. Godman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'those sections' and insert
'sections 1 to 3 and section (Immersion suits)
No. 5, in page 2, line 23, leave out 'and 4' and insert '4 and section (Immersion suits)'.
No. 7, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'and 4' and insert '4 and section (Immersion suits)'.
No. 9, in page 2, line 37, after '4', insert 'and section (Immersion suits)'.
No. 11, in page 2, line 41, after '4', insert 'and section (Immersion suits)'.
No. 13, in page 3, line 11, after '4', insert 'and section (Immersion suits)'

Dr. Godman: Many fishermen will not welcome the new clause, as their attitudes and beliefs are overwhelmingly conservative. I can say that with some conviction as my father, an honourable and decent man except for the fact that he was a life-long Tory, had that curious mixture of optimism and fatalism which seems to characterise the thinking of many fishermen. Despite the likely reservations of many fishermen, however, I shall press on.
I sincerely hope that the House will support new clause 1. I am privileged to be a sponsor of the Bill. I have heard it said, somewhat unkindly, that the Government have
gutted and filleted the Bill. I applaud the efforts of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) as a member of a fishing family and as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, which still has some members in the fishing industry.
I shall deal first with the size specification of vessel, which is defined in the new clause as 12 m in length or more. That length is specified in the Bill and it is one that is used generally in regulations. For example, the Fishing Vessels Safety Provisions Rules 1975, which were laid before Parliament on 3 April 1975, state, inter alia, that
for fishing vessels of over 12 metres in length to which these rules apply for every person on board a life jacket will be carried.
In my view, the rules and the new clause are not appropriate for open-decked boats of less than 12 m in length. For example, I am talking of the type of boat that is used by lobster fishermen and other fishermen who use static gear mainly for the catching of lobsters and crabs. It would be absurd to impose these regulations on men and crew who are working in very small boats.
Subsection (2) of the new clause states:
The immersion suit shall comply with regulation 33 of the Consolidated Text of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, published in 1986.
The foreword to the text states:
The International Conventon for the safety of Life at Sea 1974."—
—known as the 1974 SOLAS, and the acronym SOLAS is used throughout the text——
was adopted by the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea on 1 November 1974.
The fourth paragraph states:
The Maritime Safety Committee, on 17 June 1983, adopted further amendments to the 1974 SOLAS (1983 SOLAS amendments) in accordance wth the procedures specified in Article VIII and determined that these amendments shall enter into force"——
and this is important even though it relates to maritime vessels—
on 1 July 1986 unless prior to 1 January 1986 more than one third of Contracting States to the Convention or Contracting States, the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 50 per cent. of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant fleet, have notified their objections.
The articles and regulations in the text refer to merchant vessels and not fishing vessels and my aim is to bring these commendable articles and regulations into the discussion of the provision of life-saving equipment in fishing vessels. Article 1 deals with general obligations under the convention and states that
the Contracting Governments undertake to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and the Annex thereto, which shall constitute an integral part of the present Convention. Every reference to the present Convention constitutes at the same time a reference to the Annex.
I make no apology for quoting at length, because I am dealing with a first-class guideline for the safety of fishermen as they go about their hazardous work. Article 1(b) states:
the Contracting Governments undertake to promulgate all laws, decrees, orders and regulations and to take all other steps which may be necessary to give the present Convention full and complete effect, so as to ensure that, from the point of view of safety of life, a ship is fit for the service for which it is intended.
Surely that should apply to fishing vessels as well. I know that there will be no dispute about that. Article 2, which deals with application, states:
The present Convention shall apply to ships entitled to fly the flag of States the Governments of which are Contracting Governments.
9.45 am
I shall refer to regulation 33 because it is mentioned specifically in the new clause. The regulation is concerned with immersion suits—their nature, their make up and the functions that they must be capable of performing in what inevitably will be extreme and harsh conditions. The regulation provides:
the immersion suit shall be constructed with waterproof materials such that: 1 it can be unpacked and donned without assistance within 2 min, taking into account any associated clothing, and a lifejacket if the immersion suit is to be worn in conjuction with a lifejacket;
2 it will not sustain burning or continue melting after being totally enveloped in a fire for a period of 2s;
3 it will cover the whole body with the exception of the face. Hands shall also be covered unless permanently attached gloves are provided … An immersion suit shall permit the person wearing it, and also wearing a lifejacket if the immersion suit is to be worn in conjunction with a lifejacket;

1 climb up and down a vertical ladder at least 5 m in length;
2 perform normal duties during abandonment"—

that is, the abandonment of the vessel—
3 Jump from a height of not less than 4·5 m into the water without damaging or dislodging the immersion suit, or being injured; and 4 swim a short distance through the water and board a survival craft.
An important part of the regulation is the thermal performance requirements, which are set out in paragraph 2.2 on page 261 of the text. The requirements are as follows:
An immersion suit made of material with inherent insulation, when worn either on its own or with a lifejacket, if the immersion suit is to be worn in conjunction with a lifejacket, shall provide the wearer with sufficient thermal insulation, following one jump into the water from a height of 4·5 m, to ensure that the wearer's body core temperature does not fall more than 2°
C after a period of 6h immersion in calm circulating water at a temperature of between 0°
C and 2°
C.
Water is rarely calm when a vessel is abandoned, but the temperature that is specified in the requirements of the suit is important. The requirement is that a suit should protect a man in the water when the temperature is about 0 deg C.
Having explained what is meant by an immersion suit, I shall turn to a discussion of the evidence which I believe substantiates the need for such life-saving gear to be provided for each member of a fishing vessel's crew.
I said on Second Reading that safety at sea has long concerned me, and that concern prompted the new clause. It was a matter of regret for me that I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. I shall never lose my stark memory of the loss, in 1968, of three Hull trawlers—the Ross Cleveland, the Kingston Peridot and the St. Romanus. Fifty-nine men were involved, of whom 58 perished. Many of them were personal friends of mine whom I had been at school with. Indeed, some years later my brother Leslie, a fisherman, married the widow of the skipper of the Kingston Peridot, who was drowned along with his comrades when his ship foundered.
The report of the court of inquiry into the loss of the Ross Cleveland is very relevant to my new clause. As the Minister well knows, the court was convened under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. The hearings were held in Hull in October 1968, and I attended some of them. Judge Naisby's report was published on 4 November 1968. I shall quote from what he said with specific reference to protective clothing when a fishing vessel is abandoned. In paragraph 27 of the report of the court of inquiry, he said:
The evidence in this Inquiry demonstrated the advisability of some form of protective clothing being available for the crews of trawlers in the event of a casualty when they had to leave the vessel. This matter is under consideration by the Hull Mutual Insurance Society"—
now, I believe, defunct—
and perhaps other organisations connected with trawlers, and it seems that a small, comparatively cheap form of such clothing can be obtained of such a size that a sufficient number can be packed in a liferaft.
I certainly do not want us to take up that last recommendation. I believe that immersion suits should be carried on the vessel and not stowed in liferafts. But what the judge had to say is germane to this debate. He made those remarks because of the circumstances surrounding the survival of the mate, Harry Eddom, whose family I know well, and the death of two of his comrades who climbed into the raft with him. The report of the court of inquiry says:
The mate, who stated that he was in the starboard side of the wheelhouse, said that the vessel heeled over to port"—
it was under considerable icing at the time—


and that he was able to get out of the starboard door and climbed aft along the casing where he saw two members of the crew in the process of launching one of the inflatable liferafts. The raft was launched, and the mate gave evidence that he was struck by a sea and washed overboard and came to in the liferaft having been pulled into it by the other two men who were in it. One of the flaps of the liferaft had been torn, but they were able to close the other. However, a heavy sea"—
the Ross Cleveland sank off the north coast of Iceland in February 1968, after a force 12 had been blowing with a heavy snowfall—
washed into the raft taking out a considerable portion of its equipment, including the bailer, but the occupants were able to reduce the water in the raft by improvised means.
The next passage demonstrates the need for my new clause:
The three men in the liferaft were very differently dressed. One of them had very little clothing on"—
he was dressed in his vest and underpants or, as we would say in Scotland, in his semmit and drawers—
which was, of course, wet through, and he soon became unconscious and, despite efforts by his companions, died in about one and a half hours. The second occupant of the raft, who was more warmly clad but who was wearing no waterproof clothing, also succumbed to the cold and died a little later. The mate, who was warmly clad and was wearing protective clothing, managed to survive, and about daylight the raft grounded. The mate was able to get out, drag the raft clear of the water, stagger along the shore to an empty house under the lee of which he stayed the night, and next morning was found by a shepherd boy who assisted the mate to reach his home farm where the mate was given hot drinks, dry clothing and put to bed.
I well remember the news of Harry Eddom's survival being announced. He was the sole survivor of that tragedy. I am not for a moment saying that such immersion suits would have saved all of the men, but I genuinely believe that the two laddies in the raft with Harry Eddom would have survived. Only this morning I spoke to my cousin, skipper Len Whur, who, at the time of the founding of the Ross Cleveland, was in command of the Hull trawler, the Kingston Andalusite. That trawler was just two cable lengths away when the Ross Cleveland heeled over and sank but my cousin and his crew were unable to help their comrades.
At 8.45 am today, my cousin said that he would give every encouragement to the new clause because of the survival of Harry Eddom and because, since leaving the fishing industry, he has commanded a survey vessel working in the North sea oil and gas industries, often in appalling weather. That vessel is registered in London. It is a British registered vessel, and every crew member is given the best sort of survival suit. If survival suits can be given to the crews of offshore oil supply vessels, large merchant vessels or other vessels whose keels are laidf on 1 July 1986, why can they not be given to the crews of fishing vessels 12 m in length or more? Under the most trying circumstances, that fisherman watched his mates drown, and he argues for such survival equipment.
The dreadful losses in 1968 all came, if I remember correctly, within about four weeks. They led to the Government of the then Mr. Harold Wilson setting up a committee of inquiry into trawler safety under the admirable charmanship of Sir Derek Holland-Martin. The report, Cmnd. 4114, was published in July 1969, and I know that at least one hon. Member here today was a Member of the House then. The report contained many recommendations including one on survival clothing. Paragraph 105 of what is known to every fisherman in the United Kingdom as the Holland-Martin report says:

In the first place, the statutory rules on lifesaving appliances do not require trawlers to carry any special clothing for survivors to wear in liferafts. It became clear after the loss of the Ross Cleveland north of Iceland in February 1968 that crew members might well reach a liferaft with insufficient clothing to survive in Arctic seas (especially after casualties like capsizing, which can happen suddenly) even though the inflatable liferafts carried on trawlers have canopies which enable the raft to be completely closed.
That is one of the recommendations in a report pubished in 1969.
10 am
The report continues:
We recommend that, in the light of these studies, the Board of Trade should take steps to ensure that all trawlers which operate in Arctic Seas carry survival clothing for use in liferafts.
I remind the House that this was an inquiry into deep sea trawling which has largely disappeared. The British fishing industry today is dominated by share fishermen interests. The report continues:
We also recommend that, in addition, the trawler-owners ensure that cooks, engine-room personnel and other crew members who normally work below decks provide themselves with warm outer clothing suitable for wear in an emergency; these men may never go on the open deck in the course of their normal duties and do not always possess adequate protective clothing at present.
Debates on the Bill and other debates have demonstrated that survival at sea is not, and never will be, a subject for partisan politics. However, it is a subject that must engage the attention of the House from time to time because safety for fishing vessels is too important to be left to fishermen themselves. Successive Administrations have been disturbingly slow in translating such recommendations into safety regulations.
In support of my new clause I refer to a recent maritime tragedy—that of the French trawler Snekkar Arctic which sank 350 miles west of Lewis on Saturday 22 February with the loss of 18 lives. The importance of survival suits was starkly and chillingly demonstrated by those deaths. The Stornoway Gazette and West Coast Advertiser of 1 March said that the survivors—that is, the men wearing survival suits—were in the water for three and a half hours before rescue. The weather conditions were appalling. The men who went over the side in just trousers and shirts died very quickly. All French trawlers have to carry a complement of survival suits. The newspaper states:
Every man on the Snekkar Arctic who had time to don an immersion suit survived. All the others perished. That was one of the facts which emerged when the survivors of the tragedy told their story in Stornoway on Sunday.
The editorial in that excellent paper discussed the tragedy and the attitudes of fishermen to safety equipment and referred to the relatively large sums involved in purchasing such equipment. The editorial stated:
When the Snekkar Arctic went down nine men managed to get into immersion suits. Those nine survived, even though some of them had not put the things on properly. The 11 others got off the boat, but were drowned or dead of hypothermia long before the 'Dogger Bank' arrived. Those nine lives have surely amply repaid the cost of fitting the French fleet with the suits … If there is a criticism to be made of the Safety at Sea Bill, it is not that it goes too far, it is that it does not go far enough. French vessels, and those of some other countries, have to carry immersion suits. British vessels do not"—
the leader writer is slightly adrift there—
although they are provided on all Royal Navy ships. A Navy spokesman tells us that while men are on deck in foul weather they carry the suits at all times, in the same way that gas masks are carried. When below deck the suits are stored at specified points. Their use considerably extends the life expectancy of the


user, and it takes under 30 seconds to put them on. The suits cost about £300 each, but even so Britain should join France, Norway, West Germany and Denmark in insisting that they are carried. Grants for their purchase are, apparently, already available.
The article concludes:
We expect that many fishermen, particularly those old enough to be set in their ways, would object strongly to being made subject to such laws—after all, 'it can't happen to me'. But since 1975 a total of 434 United Kingdom registered fishing boats have been lost. There are nine men in Normandy who will be grateful as long as they live for the strict French safety regulations.
I make no apology for spending so much time on presenting new clause 1. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. I spoke yesterday to a senior official from the Transport and General Workers Union in Scotland. He is well known to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. I refer to Mr. Mel Keenan, who is responsible for the fishermen who still sail out of Aberdeen in the ever-diminishing fleet of company-owned trawlers. He is also responsible for the men who work on the standby and rescue vessels which sail round oil and gas rigs in the North sea. The vessels are usually former side trawlers. Mr. Keenan said that he would like survival suits to be carried in all our fishing vessels.
The survival of Harry Eddom in such terrible conditions off north-west Iceland in 1968, the survival of the nine French fishermen two months ago and, more tellingly, the deaths of Harry Eddom's colleagues and of the French fishermen, clearly demonstrate the need for survival suits to be carried on fishing vessels.
I have no doubt that I shall be told that the new clause is technically deficient, but I hope that the principle is acceptable to the Minister and his officials.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for his comments. He has taken a great interest in fishing matters since he came to the House and I am pleased that he decided to be a sponsor of my Bill. I agree that, far from gutting the Bill, the Government have supported its principles, as is evidenced by the clauses which they have accepted.
I listened with care to what the hon. Member said about the compulsory wearing of immersion suits. On Second Reading he argued that that should be obligatory, and he has reinforced his case today. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the sinking of the French trawler in February this year, when 15 fishermen were drowned or missing. Only three bodies were recovered. The nine fishermen who were saved were wearing insulated immersion suits which had built-in life jackets. They cost £300. An immersion suit can be worn in conjunction with a life jacket or designed with an inbuilt life jacket, which can be classed as a life jacket.
A suit without inherent insulation should permit a wearer's body core not to fall more than 2 deg C during a submersion of one hour in water at a temperature of 5 deg C. An insulated immersion suit of the type worn by nine men who were rescued from the French trawler permits the wearer to write with a pencil after he has been immersed in water for one hour at a temperature of 5 deg C. That certainly reinforces the strong conviction of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow in presenting the new clause.
The Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances)(Amendment) Regulations 1986, which will apply to all but a few British vessels, including some fishing vessels, come into force for new vessels on 1 July 1986. I hope that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow welcomes that. The regulations will introduce, for the first time a requirement for immersion suits to be carried on British vessels. They incorporate amendments to the 1983 safety of life at sea convention requirements which include the provision of immersion suits.
The main thrust of the requirements is that vessels that do not provide dry-shore evacuation and rely on persons going down the side of the ship into the inflatable life rafts—that will be the case with a number of trawlers—should provide immersion suits. In addition, the regulations provide for a rescue boat to be carried on all vessels. The rescue boats for smaller vessels are invariably the inflatable boat type, with a low freeboard and a high spray. The crews of such vessels will be required to have immersion suits.
10.15 am
I am sure that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow will accept that, although the Government intend to apply these requirements to existing vessels at a later date, it was found to be impossible, in legal terms, to impose that requirement in these regulations. However, the Government are preparing regulations which would give effect to that. The hon. Gentleman gave valuable information to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport. He said that immersion suits should be carried compulsorily on fishing vessels. The detailed specifications for immersion suits can be found in schedule 2 of the Government's proposed regulations, which are due to come into effect on 1 July 1986. To date, no manufacturer has won the Department of Transport approval for a suit under the requirements of schedule 2. That is one of the reasons that the Government—I am sure that the Minister will make it clear—cannot bring the regulations into effect.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow shares the concern that I have felt since the conception of the Bill about what the measure will cost fishermen. We have both said consistently that when it comes to saving a fisherman's life we should not ask how much the safety equipment costs.
Sadly, fishermen have resisted the use of modern equipment because of the cost. An uninsulated suit costs £200, an insulated suit costs £250, and an insulated suit with a built-in lifejacket costs £300. The latter type was used by the nine French fishermen who were saved.
The hon. Member made a cogent speech. He presented a strong case for the Bill to provide for the compulsory carriage of immersion suits. Reluctantly I cannot accept his clause. Before explaining why, I should make it clear, that in many circumstances men will wear immersion suits and survive, but in others, they will not wear them. I use the Scottish expression that if a man goes into the sea in his semmit and drawers, he has no chance of survival. A man in an insulated immersion suit must have a chance. The loss of the Snekkar Arctic demonstrated that. I am sure that all hon. Members who support the need for greater safety at sea will join with the hon. Gentleman in recognising that an immersion suit is a valuable piece of life-saving equipment.
The Bill provides for an emergency position indicating radio beacon, automatic release valves for life rafts and the new use of life jackets. Those provisions will enable the safety of fishermen to be substantially improved. All the measures have been well publicised and explained to the fishing industry and have been generally accepted by it.
When the Bill becomes law—I hope that it will pass through its remaining stages today—and when the regulations are made, fishermen will comply with the law, and, because they have been closely associated with its drafting they will do so willingly.
I ask the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow whether the industry has been consulted about his proposed new clause. If a fishing vessel owner has to spend a minimum of £800 on immersion suits, we shall be faced with the problem of trying to persuade fishermen that there is a real need to save their lives. If a fishing vessel owner is asked to spend £800, he will look askance and say, "No." Four of the cheaper immersion suits will cost the owner of an ordinary, small vessel £800. Would fishermen prefer to invest that £800 in that way, or would they like to think that, to improve safety, the money may be better spent elsewhere?
My information is that the industry has not considered the terms of new clause 1. I intend no discredit to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow because, as we are all aware, it is difficult to pilot through the House a private Member's Bill. Consultation time is limited, because no finance is provided to an hon. Member to help present his Bill. He must do the majority of the work himself and must depend on the good will of interested organisations. I make no apology for the fact that neither he nor I was able to consult industry as fully as we would have wished. I understand that the industry has been unable to give me the answers I wanted about new clause 1.
A decision must be made whether to carry these bulky suits. I say that not in any derogatory sense. They are a little bulky, but they are safety at sea measure and that it the vital aim of the Bill. However, it is best left to the discretion of the owner and the skipper of a fishing vessel to decide whether to provide such suits, until the Government legislate on the matter in the light of discussions with the industry.
I thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow for putting the new clause before the House and highlighting admirably the need for securing greater safety at sea through using the most modern equipment. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman hears my hon. Friend the Minister of State he will feel able to withdraw the new clause knowing that his views have been carefuly noted by the Government and that he has not wasted his time in presenting them.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I come late to the consideration of the Bill. I assure the House, especially the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), that it is not because I am not interested in the subject, but because in recent weeks I have been heavily involved in the consideration of a number of other private Members' Bills. I am extremely interested in the subject, because I have always been concerned with the safety of workers at work. Until now, I have been concerned with workers on land, especially in factories and on construction sites. I

know from bitter experience that the worker is not always the best judge of what is good for him in regard to occupational health and safety.
I must begin my belated intervention by joining those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have justifiably complimented the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan on his initiative in introducing the Bill and on all the effort, thought and work he has put into it. Every contribution to the lessening of danger and, above all, the reduction of loss of workers' lives during their work—whatever that work—is of great value.
I read closely, and more than once, the debates on Second Reading and in Committee. I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will allow me one small word of regret. I read with interest and some amusement of the various demonstrations that he gave, not only upstairs but in the Chamber, of the lifejackets whose use he was advocating. I am sorry that he has not come to the Chamber in an immersion suit. [Interruption.] As the Minister is indicating, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) might have done that, too, to show us in practice whether the suit is cumbersome or heavy.
I cannot bring to bear on fishing any of the expertise shown by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and by my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow and for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), but I know that workers are often contemptuous of safety equipment even when, unlike in this case, they are not responsible for paying for it and are not, therefore, influenced by cost.
I remember when this Chamber was rebuilt after 1945 to replace the one that had been destroyed during the war. This building is constructed of Leicester stone, which is pretty soft, which, during working and especially during smoothing, gives off much dust, which is capable of causing chest ailments similar to those suffered by miners, such as pneumoconiosis and byssinosis. It is interesting that a number of the stonemasons who worked on the building were the grandsons and the great-grandsons of the stonemasons who worked on the building erected after the 1834 fire. The post-war stonemasons were supplied with masks to keep the dust out of their lungs, but I only ever saw one wearing a mask. I often asked why they did not wear masks. One stonemason—and the others said much the same—said, "It's a bit cissy, isn't it?" That attitude is not uncommon among people working in factories who sometimes take a fiendish delight in operating moving machinery without the guards in place. I hope that the Prime Minister will not accuse me of wanting to intensify the nanny state if I say that sometimes we need to legislate for workers in their own interests to secure what they will not secure themselves.
Many of the vessels to which we are referring operate in cold waters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow has said, the difference between life and death is often a matter of how long one can survive in cold water without being frozen to death. Immersion suits and similar insulating clothing make an enormous difference, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has said. Indeed, he cited graphic figures to illustrate the problem.
All people in the services whose functions may lead them into contact with water are provided with protective clothing of this sort, and so they should be. Nothing is too good for those who devote themselves to protecting their


fellow contrymen. If we take it for granted that they should not be susceptible to the dangers of cold water without the provision of protective clothing, we cannot justify any ship going to sea without that protective clothing being provided.
I am not very happy with the comments of the hon Member for Banff and Buchan about the July regulations and possible consultation with the chaps who, no doubt, will say, "Leave us to look after our business. We know better than you fellows in Parliament." I do not see any certainty arising from that. The hon. Gentleman said that there was a legal inhibition preventing acceptance of the new clause, but he did not say what it was. I am a little puzzled about what it could be. I could have understood the hon. Gentleman saying that there was a technical fault in the drafting—he must have discovered, as I have many times, that it is not easy for private Members to become experts in drafting—and that we might have to undertake some rewording in a public place. I regret his unwillingness to accept the new clause, even if it needs a little adjustment.

Mr. McQuarrie: I should like to set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest about the word "legal". Perhaps I should not have used that word specifically and implied its normal meaning in this place. I meant that, as usual, the drafting did not provide what we needed to ensure perfect legislation. The Government are introducing new regulations to ensure that the legislation is correct.

Mr. Mikardo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He reinforces the point that I am making. Happily, the Bill will leave us this morning with the blessing of Third Reading and will go to a place where there are many lawyers—even more than in this place—some of whom are very distinguished. I have no doubt that they will bend their minds to tidying up any defects that there might be. It would be a blow for common sense if the House indicated its acceptance in principle, but, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, did little more than give information to the Minister and leant on him a little. If the new clause were incorporated into the Bill, it would lean a lot harder and ensure that practical action is taken with regard to immersion suits.
10.30 am
On Second Reading, in Committee and in his speech this morning, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said—and we keep saying—that we cannot measure the value of a life in money. Therefore, we should not try to create a balance between the expenditure of a few hundred pounds per man, which is all it is, and life. I understand that the best immersion equipment would cost about £300 per man. One cannot set a few hundred pounds against the grief, sorrow, tragedy and bereavement of a widow and children, apart from the cost to the community. If one puts it at its lowest, the cost to the community is many times greater than the few hundred pounds that the immersion suit would cost.
If it can be done in France, Norway and the other countries that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow mentioned, why can it not be done here? I do not mind where the money comes from. There was a demand in Committee that the Government should find the money. I do not know enough about the industry to

know whether such a demand would be justified or whether the Government would be justified in saying that it is a cost they could reasonably expect the industry to bear, even though it is now run almost entirely on a share basis. I do not know enough about the industry to form a judgment. However, it seems loathsome nit-picking to argue about who should pay when it is absolutely clear that somebody should pay and that immersion suits should be provided.
I shall not be very happy if, as a matter of principle, the House does not incorporate the new clause into the Bill. Some time in the future—perhaps at the onset of next winter, when, heaven forbid, some men are lost because they have been pitched into icy seas without protection—we shall look back on this day and say that the House missed the opportunity to give those chaps a chance to fight through. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, as so many have, for introducing the Bill, but in all friendship I appeal to him and to the Minister not to obstruct the incorporation of this new clause into the Bill.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I was impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). It was based upon sound experience of having been at sea and of having lived in a fishing community.
As the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, which has the fish docks and the fishing industry in it, I had the opportunity to meet the family of my hon. Friend and they are absolutely delightful people. Speaking to people like that and finding out the history of the fishing industry, the losses to families and the way in which the members of the missions have helped people in their bereavement is deeply moving. The new clause may seem to be a small measure, but it could have an immense impact upon the safety and livelihood of fishermen.
A few days before we started the Committee stage of the Bill I had the job of visiting a Mr. and Mrs. Atkins of Holderness road in Hull who had just lost their son at sea. It was a moving experience. It seems wasteful when one hears that the lost man was working on an essentially Spanish vessel operated by one of the British agencies in Plymouth. Mrs. Atkins told me that when one visits the vessel in dock it is always done up and the decks are cleared and so on, but when the vessel goes to sea all concern for safety and the way in which equipment is left on deck seems to be discarded. Although the son of Mr. and Mrs. Atkins was never found, they believe that part of the reason for his loss at sea was the way in which successive Governments have failed to get to grips with the question of the safety of fishermen at sea.
The new clause refers to the carrying of immersion suits. We had a lengthy discussion in Committee about the carrying of lifejackets, and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) demonstrated those life jackets in the Tea Rooms and Committee Rooms of the House. I admire him for doing so because of the technological changes that have taken place. As somebody who from time to time wears a lifejacket, I was impressed by the equipment that is now available. In Committee we made our decision on lifejackets and the clause refers to the provision of immersion suits which are carried either on the vessel itself or in the liferaft.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow referred to the attitudes of fishermen to safety


equipment. They tend to be dismissive and do not want to be bothered about such matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said, they tend to be contemptuous of them. However, the House is obliged to proceed with changes in legislation that we believe to be in the interests of the people concerned.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I must dissent from my hon. Friend's reference to fishermen being contemptuous of safety. Fishing is a high-risk occupation, and I suppose that that risk is part of the excitement of the job. However, the job is the call of the sea and of fishing, and in succumbing to that call it is possible that people take a relaxed attitude to safety. It is certainly not a contemptuous attitude; they are conscious of the need for safety and are dependent upon each other and on the navigational abilities and skills of the skipper.

Mr. Randall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Perhaps "contemptuous" is too strong a word; "dismissive" might be more appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, who has been to sea, would agree with that.
Whether the attitude be contemptuous or dismissive, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—who represents a fishing port and has had discussions with fishermen—will appreciate that more initiatives could have been taken by those who go to sea, both the owners and the share fishermen. That has not happened and people still go to sea without the appropriate safety equipment.
We appear to be lagging behind other countries, especially European countries, and also other sections of the shipping industry.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that face masks have been provided for workers involved in dirty processes in the woollen industry in Scotland, but they scarcely use them. Therefore, I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo).
Fishermen have a practical objection to equipment because much of the processing work in the fishing industry now takes place at sea—for example, gutting, which is done on the deck—and any obstruction adds to the difficulties.

Mr. Randall: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but we need to distinguish between the carrying and the wearing. There was considerable debate in Committee about whether the lifejackets proposed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan would enable fishermen to fish and do other work. Concern was expressed about wear and tear on a lifejacket which, in the event of its being needed, might then malfunction.
The clause provides for either the placing of immersion suits in the vessel or packed in liferafts. That is an important distinction. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow dealt with the performance of immersion suits and referred to regulation 33. I do not want to spend time talking about the attributes and the technical specifications of immersion suits, save only to say that the requirement for immersion suits to be unpacked and donned within two minutes is rather important. If it cannot happen within that time scale, they would be useless in certain accidents such as a collision in Arctic waters.
10.45 am
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said that when such equipment is worn there is considerable scope for saving lives. I found his arguments impressive and I am sure that his personal experience has been immensely valuable to the House. We must remember that the proposal for immersion suits refers only to the fishing industry because they are already mandatory on offshore oil supply and merchant vessels. It is staggering that in this day and age we do not provide such equipment on our fishing vessels. Certainly the French trawlermen are obliged to carry this equipment. Perhaps the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan can explain why it is mandatory in other countries but not in Britain.

Mr. Mikardo: That is a key question. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) said that no one in Britain had yet devised a suit that measured up to the required standard. How have the French managed to achieve that?

Mr. Randall: I was about to ask that question myself. British fishermen are being deprived of proper safety equipment. I was not impressed by the argument of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that the Government propose to introduce a new set of regulations in July. This Bill is about the safety of fishermen at sea. I am also not impressed by the hon. Gentleman's argument that Britain has not produced equipment of the right specification. If the French can do it, why cannot we?

Mr. McQuarrie: I can give the hon. Gentleman two answers. I said that the compulsory wearing of immersion suits from July 1986 would be obligatory on certain fishing vessels, and that that would be incorporated into the regulations. I also said that I was in full agreement with the Minister that discussions must be held with the industry about fishermen being compelled to wear these suits. We know to our cost that there was not sufficient discussion about lifejackets, and the industry threw out the proposal. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that there must be proper discussion with the industry so that we can gain acceptance of our proposals.
Secondly, some French equipment, material, food and other things would not be acceptable under any regulations that the House would want to approve.

Mr. Randall: Today we are talking about provisions for improving safety at sea. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the regulations will be coming in, and will apply to some vessels. However, we do not know to which vessels they will apply. Therefore, we do not know whether we should wait till July or deal with the matter here. I think that we should deal with it today without waiting.
Of course, consultation should always take place. and it has taken place. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow has consulted, and his experience shows that such a proposal could be carried in arguments with the industry.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that the specification of the French equipment might not be acceptable here. I do not accept that argument. because, time and again, in many areas we have attempted to formulate a perfect standard for equipment. If that standard cannot be met, the equipment cannot be


modified. In the meantime, people are being lost at sea. Such arguments are not valid. We should ensure that the amendments are inserted in the Bill.

Dr. Godman: I would look for an initiative being taken by the European Community on that issue. I can well understand why fishermen are unhappy with consultation because the history of consultation between the Government and fishermen's federations is not of the happiest. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) knows that as well as I do. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland was criticised only recently for its failure to consult vis-à-vis the imposition of a ban on monofilament nets in Scottish waters. The hon. Gentleman knows what I am talking about.

Mr. Randall: I shall not add to what my hon. Friend has just said about Scotland. We could wait for an EEC initiative, but we are in 1986, and it has taken us long time even to agree that we should have distress beacons to help Nimrods or civil aircraft when they are searching for men on a liferaft. Therefore, for us to delay longer on the use of the immersion suit is absurd and verging on complacency. Therefore, I want action to be taken.
Talking about absurdities, it seems more than absurd that vessels, particularly distant water vessels, go into Arctic seas in winter when we know that, unprotected, the human body can suffer from exposure in minutes. I find it utterly baffling that in 1986 we allow British fishermen to go into Arctic waters without being fully protected against the possibility of an accident when someone goes overboard or there is a collision. Many other accident can happen. Therefore, we must proceed with the new clause to ensure that that vital equipment is provided.
The other argument that is used is the argument of cost. I cannot accept for one moment that we should be talking about whether we proceed with the provision of those facilities, which can determine whether a person survives at sea, in relation to the cost of that equipment. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan gave some figures. He said that at the most the cost would be £350. I presume that that includes VAT. We could introduce legislation to get rid of VAT. But we are talking about families which may become bereaved—children and widows. We are reconciling that deep loss with a few hundred pounds for the provision of immersion suits. Again, I cannot be impressed by such an argument. We are talking about the saving of human lives. I am not concerned about where the money comes from—whether from the share fishermen, owners or even the Government. It is a small sum that is involved, the sort of sum that a person might spend on a holiday in Spain each year. We are reconciling that with human life. I am sorry; I cannot accept that argument.
I am deeply concerned that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has taken the line that he has on the new clause. He believes that it should not be inserted in his Bill. The reason that he gave is that in July a new set of regulations will be introduced for that purpose by the Government.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman should not labour his point about 1 July. The most important factor is the consultation with the industry. As the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said, it is a matter

of whether the fishermen will accept that they will be able to work on deck if they are obliged to wear the suit. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I should be delighted if the clause were inserted in my Bill today, but there would be a problem if it were inserted before the necessary consultation with the industry. I have had to suffer the disasterous consequences of the rejection of the lifejacket issue. I wanted that provision to be made mandatory by the House.

Mr. Randall: Our dilemma is that either we pass the new clause and insert it in the Bill or we lose the opportunity. I feel that many people, particularly those in the trade union movement and many fishermen at sea, might despise us for not being a little more bold in taking the initiative.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said, it is difficult to get agreement in the fishing industry. Anyone who has talked to people in the various federations and the producer organisations, and those who represent fishing ports, will know how difficult it is to get agreement on these matters. I believe that the best thing for us to do for the sake of fishermen is not to delay, but to insert the provision in the Bill. The Bill will go to another place for further consideration, and there will be other opportunities for consultation before it receives Royal Assent.
As I said in Committee, the initiative taken by the hon. Member for Bumf and Buchan—[Interruption.] The problem is that there is sometimes too much bumf around. However, the Bill does not constitute bumf. I admire the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan for taking the initiative. Other parts of the Bill will promote safety in the industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows from the Committee stage, the Opposition were highly supportive of the measures.
11 am
The Bill has been changed considerably and I know that the Minister has had his finger in the pie. We all know what happens with amendments to private Members' Bills. I suspect that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has had his arm twisted behind his back on this matter. As a result, we shall waste a great opportunity to bring the safety of British fishing vessels into the 1980s, to make us comparable with other countries, and to ensure that we prevent bereavement and families having to live without a breadwinner.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for not being present to hear his speech. I had a detailed account of it from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), and it must have been impressive. I was absent because I was engaged in urgent discussions in Grimsby last night about whether Conservative and alliance candidates in the local elections should have worn immersion suits before the dunking they were given yesterday. In the end, that proposal was negatived. I was stuck, fuming, in a traffic jam at the end of the A1 this morning.
I commend this important new clause because it gives us the chance to strengthen the requirements for safety and to show the way to an industry that has often neglected its safety, especially on smaller vessels and among smaller firms, to its detriment. More importantly, it has led to the tragic loss of men working in the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, as a sponsor of the Bill, is passionately concerned about safety at sea, which the new clause would further. However, the new clause represents the central dilemma of the Bill, which we discussed on Second Reading and again in Committee.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has struck the right balance with his Bill. It is a great achievement, very much to his credit, and it will associate his name with safety at sea. It will be a tremendous achievement for the hon. Gentleman to get his Bill on the statute book, as I am sure he will, because this is an area in which we must legislate. The House has been curiously neglectful about safety at sea. By bringing the matter before the House, the hon. Gentleman has done a great service to the industry and to Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a dilemma in striking the right balance between what is practical and affordable—what the industry can afford if it is pushed, but what is not too grievous an imposition-—and what is necessary and desirable. The hon. Gentleman has got the balance right.
The new clause reveals the dilemma in its most acute form because of the expense of the immersion suits that we are discussing. We must be clear that the new clause proposes a compulsion to carry, but not to wear, the suits. The new clause is not intended to interfere with the work on vessels.

Mr. McQuarrie: It is all very well to say that the new clause contains a compulsion only to carry the suits. At some stage, they must be worn. How can we justify the expense of purchasing the suits if they are put into lockers and left there for ever?

Mr. Mitchell: As with carrying fire extinguishers in cars, one hopes that they will never be used, but there must be provision for emergencies. The sensible motorist makes that provision, and the sensible skipper will provide for an accident. Fishing is a high-risk industry, and statistics show that fishermen are much more at risk than the much-vaunted miners, who constantly tell us about the risk of accident and death in their industry.
It would be sensible to carry immersion suits, and we should impose this provision with justice on the industry. However, the expense involved is considerable. We are discussing not the basic model costing £200, but a suit costing £300. That would be a considerable expense for the owner of a seine netter in Grimsby with a crew of four, five or six, depending on the size of the vessel. Perhaps we should make it a requirement that new vessels should include those suits as part of their basic equipment. There is no problem about space, because the suits, when folded are about the size of a business man's briefcase. They will not take up much space on seine netters, which are cramped vessels. The problem is cost.
We must accept the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that there is a need for action. French and Norwegian vessels already carry such immersion suits. We cannot say that the lives of British fishermen are inferior to those of French or Norwegian fishermen. British fishermen might not be exposed to more risk since the loss of the Icelandic waters and the big distant-water fleet, but we cannot say that their lives are inferior. French fishermen have many advantages over their British counterparts. They can retire at 55, but the fishermen in Grimsby cannot.
I accept that consultation within the industry is difficult. The industry is not organised for consultation. It is organised on the basis of small entrepreneurs and scattered businesses, and often there is great rivalry between different ports and areas. Fishermen often resent Government interference, which is understandable when one considers the Government's record with regard to the industry. The choice is whether to impose the suits on the industry or not. I accept that there would be howls of protest if we went through a long process of consultation. We must consider whether this is a desirable objective for the industry.
That brings me to my view on how it should be attained. It would be wrong to impose the provision on an industry—certainly the English industry—which which is in serious financial difficulties. The many fewer vessels in Grimsby are just managing to pay their way, but they have extreme difficulties. Catches are down. No one has given me a scientific explanation of that. Last year, the fleet was unable to catch the quota for cod, and Grimsby is a cod port. This year, the quota has been substantially reduced, and the price has not been enough to compensate for the loss of catches. Returns are substantially lower. Many vessels are barely making a living. Hardly any vessels are providing a return adequate to finance new investment in the port, with the possible exception of the share fishers, and that return has to finance the safety measures that we would be imposing if the new clause were passed.
I cannot see how the industry can afford such measures. Fishermen are fishing for a longer time of the year than the original short season because they are trying to catch their quota, and they are often coming back in considerable debt to the agents or owners of the vessel. I know of fishermen who are coming back in debt to the tune of £100 or £200 at the end of the season because the catches are going down. Not even the skippers are getting enough money. The industry will not be able to afford the burden of £300 a suit. That is a considerable cost to impose upon it.
As we are agreed on the importance of the measure and the desirability of this safety factor, the responsibility is the Government's—at least for a substantial proportion of the cost. The Government surely want proper provision of safety at sea. They would not be encouraging the Bill if they did not. Therefore, the Government have the responsibility to provide for the same level of safety at sea as that of the French or Norwegian industries. Their industries are more profitable, so they can afford to finance safety in a way that we cannot.
In Committee, a point was made forcibly, but riot answered satisfactorily, about the Government's responsibility for financing safety initiatives at sea, particularly the one proposed in the new clause. After all, the Government provide immersion suits for the crews of fisheries protection vessels, and so concede that they are necessary to people at sea in high risk situations. The Government may reply that the general principle of safety provision is that the employer should provide such aid at his own expense. However, they also concede the principle of making a contribution, through the Sea Fish Industry Authority, to other aspects of safety at sea.
Even more important, the Government breach that principle of the entrepreneur providing for safety with their policy on safety on football grounds. Football clubs are in a difficult financial position. Many clubs might have to close because of the considerable cost of safety provisions necessary to bring the grounds up to modern standards.


However, the Government have conceded the principle of a Government contribution towards providing safety on football grounds. If that provision can be made, why can it not be extended to the fishing industry, where the circumstances are acute and unique? The industry is in real financial difficulties and it cannot afford these safety provisions.
The Grimsby vessels fish way out into the North sea. We have lost the vessels with a westerly capacity—the 12 BUT vessels and the Cat class vessels, tragically for the port. However, the fishermen battle considerable distances into Norweigan waters and into unfriendly Scottish waters. I say "unfriendly" because the vessels are not allowed into port if they are carrying monofilament nets, which is a crazy regulation.
Fishermen are exposed to considerable danger and they are in a unique position. The Government have seen fit to provide generously for football safety. Such generosity should be extended to safety at sea. The cost to the Government of paying for all, or at least a large proportion, of the immersion suits would be small. The problem must be tackled at some stage. If the Government are to legislate independently for the compulsory carrying of immersion suits, they will have to face the problem then. Why not face it now?
I accept the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow and I accept the difficulties that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has put in his way. Therefore, the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the Minister. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow will listen carefully to what the Minister says. I am sure that he would not want to hold up the Bill. The Minister has it in his power to say that we can incorporate this measure by accepting the principle of a Government contribution to what is generally agreed by both sides of the House to be a necessary safety measure for those in peril on the sea.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, compared with the aid that the Government have been giving to farmers, the assistance given to the fishing industry has been derisory?

Mr. Mitchell: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That brings me to the central folly of the Government's handling of the fishing industry. Benefits have been showered by the Government and by an institute about which the right hon. Gentleman and I agree—the Common Market—on agriculture, which, under the treaty of Rome, is to be treated on the same basis as fishing, but those benefits have been denied to the fishing industry. This is true of many other provisions besides safety. For example, research, which is a form of Government investment in industry, has been denied to the fishing industry. The Department that has its responsibilities for agriculture and fisheries incorporated in its title has been niggardly with regard to the fishing industry. I hope that the Minister, who is from a different Department, can remedy that deficiency.
I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow to listen carefully and decide on the basis of the Minister's reply what to do about the new clause.

Should he withdraw it to expedite the passage of the Bill, or should he pursue the point? The Minister has it in his power to help us. In the House of Commons we have the responsibility to say what basic provisions for safety should be. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has wisely seized that opportunity. We are in the business of laying down basic requirements for safety and we should therefore extend the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will help us.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I listened with care and not a little sympathy to the speech by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I was also interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) said about incorporating the new clause into his Bill. I agree that it would not be appropriate.
My hon. Friend was properly concerned as to whether there has been any consultation with the fishing industry about the compulsory carriage of immersion suits. I can tell him that, as far as the Government are concerned, there has not. However, I can report also that, as part of a review of the safety rules that apply to our fishing vessels, it has been our intention to take up with the fishing industry the question of the carriage of immersion suits—for instance, whether in terms of the vessels' areas of operation, or size, or what other life-saving equipment may be on board, there may be a case for carrying immersion suits on certain fishing vessels. Obviously I would not wish to pre-empt the outcome of such consultation but, if the Government were subsequently to decide that there was a need for a compulsory requirement for the carriage of immersion suits, I can assure the House that the statutory powers to make regulations on this subject already exist in the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Act 1970. In sum, the proposed new clause is unnecessary because of the existence of these powers. We are consulting the industry on the revision of the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975. The provision of immersion suits is included in the consultation. If the consultations are positive, we already have the powers to secure implementation. In the light of that, I ask the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow to allow the new clause to be negatived.

Dr. Godman: May I, with permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, reply briefly to some of the observations that have been made?
This has been an important debate. I listened closely to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) and I was particularly interested in his observation that no manufacturer has produced a suit that meets the Department's exacting requirements. I readily acknowledge that those requirements must be of the highest order. However, I am given to understand that suits are currently being tested in Norway by its maritime research establishments.

Mr. McQuarrie: In Birkenhead Dunlop-Beaufort is similarly testing suits in order to present them to the Department at an early date. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) talked about the use of immersion suits by people going out to the rigs and the belief by Dunlop-Beaufort that the time will soon come


when fishermen will have to use immersion suits at all times. I was fortunate enough to see suits being tested in Birkenhead during the course of discussions about the Bill.

Dr. Godman: That firm deserves our compliments for arranging with the hon. Gentleman the demonstration that took place in one of its dining rooms. I found that useful. It is a long time since I put on any survival gear, even in a drill. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and the Government's stipulation that such suits must be of the highest standards.
I am a little worried about the emphasis given by the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to the cost of the suits. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan asked whether I had consulted the fishermen's associations before tabling this new clause. I am sure that he will accept my word that the only consultations that I carried out were on an individual basis. I did not approach associations such as the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, with which both of us work closely. I mentioned my intention of putting down this new clause to the secretary of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, of which I have the honour to be one of its honorary presidents, along with, I believe, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). I did not carry out formal consultations.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Formal consultations are not the nature of what goes on in the fishing industry. There is more of constant ear-bashing by skippers and owners about their problems and grievances. On that basis it is fair to say that the skippers and crew members to whom I have talked would not welcome the new clause. That does not obviate our need to deal with the matter if it is proper for safety reasons, but they are hostile to it. That is partly because they are hostile to regulation generally, but mainly because of the considerable expense of installing immersion suits. That is why I am so disappointed that the Minister said nothing about money in his reply.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. One does suffer a lot of ear-bashing in consultations, whether formal or informal, with fishermen. I was talking about formal consultations in the sense of arranging meetings with fishermen when they come ashore. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan well knows that there are only two fishermen in my constituency, so I shall not damage my electoral interests.
This debate has been characterised by a high degree of civility and concern for fishermen and their families and I hope that it is brought to the attention of associations north and south of the border. That, in conjunction with the rescue of some of the members of the French trawler, the Snekkar Arctic, will bring to the forefront of the fishermen's minds the need to carry such equipment.
I, too, am disappointed that the Minister said nothing about costs. Can grants or tax relief be obtained for such equipment? What help can be obtained from the EEC or from the Sea Fish Industry Authority? All those avenues should be explored. I was not too happy with what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said about leaving the matter to the discretion of the skippers and owners.
I offer my grateful appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I suspect that he has even fewer fishermen in his constituency than I, but I am deeply grateful for his presence here today and I welcome his contribution. He brought the issue down to

essentials when he asked us to compare the cost of such a suit to the cost of the state of a woman being widowed. That is at the heart of any discussion on cost. My hon. Friend also mentioned the terrible grief suffered by our women folk in our fishing communities. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan talked about a suit costing £300. The Government, with their Social Security Bill, are to provide widows with a grant of £1,000. That is a stark comparison.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). He seems to be securely tied to the dockside in St. Andrew's dock or Albert dock in Hull. I am sure that he will be there for many years. I am grateful to him for the grace with which he changed his description of the attitudes of fishermen from one of contempt to one of dismissiveness. That is in my hon. Friend's favour. He is right to use the word dismissive, particularly as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West. The safety record of the trawler industry in his constituency is lamentable. I speak with real experience of that. That industry has some poor employers, not overmuch concerned with the safety of their employees. My brother, Lesley, was declared redundant after 18 years' service with such a firm and he received the princely sum of £385.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: That point bears reinforcement. Firms have been utterly dismissive of the need for redundancy payments, and when they were forced on them by the Department's decision in the Hamlings case, the owners chose to contest the case in the higher courts. They have a monstrous record and even now are trying to reject the requirement on them to pay redundancy benefits.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I hope that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow NA ill not stray from new clause 1. It contains nothing about redundancy payments.

11. 30 am

Dr. Godman: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely used that as an illustration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby said that the central dilemma in the Bill is the need to draw a fine balance and that the House has been curiously neglectful of safety. I accept the importance of cost. My hon. Friend gave the example of a small Grimsby sailor with a crew of five or six who is not earning a great deal of money at the moment. I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend about the problems associated with imposing such a safety requirement. Some fishermen are in deep financial difficulties. I also sympathise with my hon. Friend's call for state intervention on the cost of acquiring immersion suits.
I am grateful for the Minister's complimentary comments about my presentation of the new clause. He tells me that the Government have not conducted consultations with fishermen's associations recently, but am I right in thinking that that is being remedied and that the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Regulations 1975 empower the introduction of measures which require the carriage of immersion suits, after consultation?

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right except that the provision under which we would make the regulation is the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Act 1970.

Dr. Godman: I am sorry if I got the title and the year wrong, but I hope that I am not wrong about the assurance. If the consultations go as we hope they will, I understand that the carriage of immersion suits on fishing vessels of 12m or more can be introduced in the near future.
Following the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby, and as I have no wish to harm the Bill's interests, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

TRAINING IN SAFETY MATTERS

—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for securing that the skipper of and every seaman employed or engaged in a United Kingdom fishing vessel is trained in safety matters.

(2) The regulations may provide that if a person goes to sea on a fishing vessel in contravention of a requirement of the regulations—

(a) he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2, or if he is the skipper or an owner of the vessel level 5, on the standard scale; and
(b) the skipper and each owner of the vessel is (except in respect of a contravention by himself) liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 12, in page 3, line 10, leave out 'sections 1 to 4' and insert
`this Part or section (Training in safety matters)'.
No. 14, in page 3, line 15, leave out `Act' and insert
'Part or section (Training in safety matters)'.
No. 15, in page 3, line 19, leave out 'Act' and insert
'Part or section (Training in safety matters)'.
No. 16, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'Act' and insert
'Part or section (Training in safety matters)'.
No. 17, in page 3, line 28, leave out 'foregoing provisions of this Act' and insert
`provisions of this Part or section (Training in safety matters)'
No. 18, in page 3, line 31, leave out
'Act or any enactment amended by this Act'
and insert
'Part or section (Training in safety matters) or any enactment amended by this Part or section (Training in safety matters)'
No. 19, in page 5, line 33, after 'Part I', insert
'or section (Training in safety matters)'.

Mr. Mitchell: In Committee, I said that it was the Government's intention to introduce on Report a new clause dealing with safety training. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) said at the time, he has made headway in persuading the Government that it is right to take a power enabling regulations to be made which require fishermen to undergo safety training. This decision was not easily reached. By temperament, my preference in general is that such matters should be organised voluntarily, but the industry has said that it is prepared to see such a power on the statute book. This, coupled with the knowledge that fishing as an occupation is still four times more dangerous than coal mining, are powerful arguments in favour of compulsion.
In Committee, I also said that it was right for the fishing industry, not the taxpayer, to meet the cost of such training. It was most encouraging, therefore, to learn that at the meeting the following day of the fishing industry safety group the body representative of the views of fishermen's organisations on safety matters, no objections were expressed to the proposal to introduce a new clause dealing with training on this basis.
Subsection (1) provides a simple and flexible power to make regulations on safety matters. These would, by virtue of clause 8(3), be the subject of prior consultation with the fishing indsutry. In the first instance, such regulations would be concerned to apply a requirement for survival at sea training on all new entrants to the industry before they take up employment on a fishing vessel. It seems that this must be the group of fishermen, or would-be fishermen, at greatest risk, and therefore where the industry's additional investment in safety training will yield the greatest benefit in lives saved that might otherwise be lost. This modest start also recognises that the industry has limited financial resources.
Whether fire-fighting and some form of basic first aid training might also be covered by the regulations, at the same time or later, will also have to be discussed with the industry.
Subsection (2) makes it an offence for a person not to comply with the regulations if he goes to sea on a fishing vessel. Similarly, it provides that the skipper and owner of that vessel commit an offence if they allow that person to go to sea in contravention of the regulations. I should for completeness add that the amendments in this group are purely technical and consequential upon this new clause.

Mr. McQuarrie: I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister has said about new clause 2. It reinforces the fact that training in survival at sea, fire-fighting courses and training in first aid are essential requirements for the fishing industry.
In 1985–86, to 31 March, 4,472 fishermen had undergone survival courses, 2,329 had taken a firefighting course, and 712 had taken a first aid course. Moreover, 1,129 young boys received training to the same standard under a youth training scheme, which shows that the Government's initiatives in that direction are working.
I must commend the Sea Fish Industry Authority in Scotland on its diligence. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that it endorses the proposal that the three training sectors should be legal requirements. In a letter to me dated 23 April, the deputy chief executive said:
A one-day fire-fighting course is also offered but this is not DOT approved and the content may need to be reviewed by them if the Bill becomes law. First aid should be added and all new entrants, not just school leavers under YTS, should go through the course before going to sea. We also see no reason why the provision of six months should be implemented or for excluding those over 50 who have joined the industry. Altogether, a substantial number of people employed by the catching centre have been exposed to the training that you envisage and the SFIA endorse the proposal that this should become a legal requirement.
I am therefore most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for proposing the new clause. I support it and commend it to the House.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House pressed my hon. Friend the Minister to introduce a new clause on training. We insisted that one was essential to ensure that training was compulsory. It is no less ambitious than the


clause in the original Bill, but it has the additional merit that the industry and the Government can proceed together in stages to extend safety training on certain subjects to particular groups of fishermen when experience shows that the risks there are greatest. I agree entirely that new entrants to the industry are probably at the greatest risk irrespective of their age.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman has commended the efforts of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I am sure that he will join me in offering commendation to the members of the now defunct sea fisheries training council, which paved the way for the training of fishermen, especially in the share sector.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the work of the council. I agree that it should be commended for the great work that it undertook. At the same time, we should not forget existing training organisations. At Peterhead, which is in my constituency, fishermen are put through various courses. The local organisation that is responsible for training undertakes a tremendous amount of work and the success of training organisations generally has led all hon. Members to be supportive of the argument that there is a need to have mandatory training courses.
New entrants to the industry, irrespective of their age, should be obliged to undergo safety courses. They will be at greater risk than experienced fishermen and survival at sea training should be a first priority. However, training will not stop there. As training resources allow and as finance can be found from within the industry, or from whatever source, training must be provided in fire fighting and basic first aid. It would be as well for my hon. Friend the Minister to take note of the need for specific requirements when dealing with safety matters.
I spoke to my hon. Friend about the wording of the clause, especially the passage
fishing vessel is trained in safety matters.
That phrase has been adopted instead of setting out the three specific areas of training that we are discussing. I am happy to say that my hon. Friend assured me that he wants to ensure that other aspects of safety and training in them that are brought to the attention of the Government by fishing organisations or hon. Members are taken up apart from training in fire fighting, first aid and survival at sea.
It will be necessary to consider which other groups of fishermen could benefit from compulsory training as soon as satisfactory arrangments have been made for new entrants to the industry. The clause is commendable, and I ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I welcome the clause, which I think is essential and overdue. I remember taking great objection, along with other hon. Members, to the winding up of training under the sea fisheries training council. Fortunately, some other arrangements have been made. I am pleased to say that more than 90 per cent. of fishermen in the fleets in my constituency have been trained in sea survival techniques. I hope that the training will be extended to cover 100 per cent. of those who go to sea in our fishing fleets.
I agree with the need for training in the techniques which have been mentioned, especially in sea survival. In the Navy it was interesting to receive instruction in elementary techniques that would never have occurred to those who were not normally at sea, such as staying by the

vessel in the event of an accident unless it was obviously sinking. The advantages of doing that were explained to us. It would probably be unnecessary to give such elementary advice to fishermen. However, there are other pieces of advice that would lead to the saving of life at sea.
11.45 am
Fire-fighting training will be necessary. There have been two or three examples in recent years of fishing vessels being lost because of fire. The need for first aid training needs no explanation, for we know that accidents are frequent. Most hospitals near to fishing grounds regularly receive fishermen who have been injured at sea. It is obvious that first aid is extremely important.
The Minister should take into account the need for training in radio communication when he comes to draft the regulations. It may not be necessary for every member of the crew of a vessel to be trained in that skill, but boats should carry crew members who have some knowledge of making radio communication. That ability would be extremely useful.
The clause will be one of the most important parts of the Bill, and I hope that the House will give it an easy passage.

Mr. Mikardo: I am not as readily satisfied as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). It seems that we have been given a superficial and invalid reason by the Minister for not specifying the major areas in which training should take place. The Minister said that if it were stated that there should be training in A, B and C, that would include and exclude, and that people might say that there need not be training in other matters.
That explanation will not do. There are so many examples in statutes where certain matters have been specified, followed by a phrase such as "any other matters which may be necessary". One example relates to an entirely different area of the law where a form of words is used which could be employed in this instance. I have in mind the obligation that is placed upon public corporations to set up machinery for consultation with their workers about health, welfare, safety, wages, working conditions and other specific matters. That is followed by a phrase such as "and any other matters of mutual interest".
Instead of using the extremely vague term "safety matters"—it is extremely imprecise and woolly—we could use a phrase such as "training in survival techniques, fire fighting, first aid and any other safety matters". That should have been done.
As the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said, it is essential that the Bill should include a clause covering training. We all agree about that. Unfortunately the clause is a poor, pathetic little fish. The first sentence begins with these words:
The Secretary of State may make regulations
That is a form of phraseology that I do not like very much, wherever it occurs. If the Secretary of State may make regulations, he may also not make regulations. It means that there is no obligation on him to do so. If we put the clause in the Bill, we shall not have a provision that ensures that training will take place.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has told us about all the training that has gone on or is going on, and that is great—I dare say that if the clause had not been tabled some of that training would have continued. However, the hon. Gentleman has told us that the industry


wants training to be statutory. What does it mean by that? It wants to ensure that there is a statutory provision that will guarantee that training will take place. Unfortunately, the clause will not provide that guarantee. The decision whether to ensure that training takes place will lie within the Secretary of State's discretion.
I hope that before we leave the new clause the Minister will seek the leave of the House to speak again, which I am sure will be freely given to him, so that he can tell us with some precision what action he proposes to take, and how quickly, under the clause. It would be much better if the Secretary of State said that he would make regulations or if he could specify the training involved. But we cannot achieve that at this stage of the Bill, although it could be done in the other place.
We need a curriculum. We are laying down educational provisions without stating the curriculum. If there is not to be a firm statement in the Bill that the Secretary of State will make regulations, and if there is not to be any curriculum, we must at least have some assurance on the record from the Minister that we can quote back at him in a few months' time if those deeply concerned about the industry, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) find that training, or adequate training is not being provided.

Mr. McQuarrie: Perhaps I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. The letter that I received from the Sea Fish Industry Authority indicated that it was in a position to support the courses until 1989, when the financial position would be reviewed with the Minister. That is why I was satisfied that the wording that I discussed at length with my hon. Friend the Minister and the noble Lord was acceptable.

Mr. Mikardo: That is all right as far as it goes. I applaud the hon. Gentleman for having secured that letter and for having got that much on the record. But it does not go far enough. First, it does not go beyond 1989, which is not very far away. Moreover, it makes no mention of the quality or length of the courses, of the subjects covered, or of how effective they will be. We need to know that. What sort of courses will there be, and how long will they last? How seriously will the training be taken? Will chaps get time off, and will they be able to attend full time? What are the teachers' qualifications? What certification, if any, or other evidence that the chap taking the course has absorbed what he has heard will be provided? What proof will there be that he has been listening, and is capable of implementing what he has heard?

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman has taken an extremely wide interest in the Bill, and I am grateful to him for that. But he may not be as aware of the issues involved as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and I are, as we are deeply immersed in the fishing industry. I have the largest fishing constituency in Europe. The courses are carried out via a national network which is controlled by the SFIA. They run for a specific number of days. The instructors have the highest qualifications. The courses cover fire fighting,

safety at sea, survival at sea and first aid, and subsistence and travelling expenses are paid to those who have to travel to the various centres.

Mr. Mikardo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. I had gathered something like that from reading the reports of the Bill's earlier stages. But we are now moving from non-statutory to statutory provision. The Secretary of State may be going to make regulations. He is under no compulsion to do so, although I dare say that he intends to. But I want to know what those regulations will say about the quantity and quality of the courses. They will have to say something. They may merely repeat the provision that the hon. Gentleman has just described. But I should like to know whether that is so, or whether they will go further than that.

Dr. Godman: Perhaps I may add to what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) said about the funding of training. He said that the SFIA would fund it until 1989, but what will happen to that funding after that? Will the state seek to impose a levy on fishermen to pay for it? Moreover, is not training in agriculture state funded? If it is, training in the fishing industry should surely continue to receive state funding.

Mr. Mikardo: As I said, the provision is all right as far as it goes. But funding will continue only until 1989. After that, we are left with a vacuum. If the industry undertakes to provide training, and can provide adequate resources for doing it properly, all well and good. No one would object to that. But my hon. Friend is right; the state must take a fallback position. If the funds dry up in 1989, or even before then, we must ensure that training does not cease just because the Government have not accepted any obligation to carry that burden.
I do not want to make a great bureaucratic thing out of this issue, and I realise that we are talking about small groups of workers. But I do not attach much value to a form of training in any walk of life that does not lead to some form of certification at the end of it. So far, we know only that a fisherman or skipper will attend a course. There is no mention of him having to work or read papers. or that he will be required to give evidence of the fact that he has taken in what he has heard or is capable of implementing it. Although the groups of workers will be small, should we not examine—as I am little versed in the industry, I put it no stronger than that—whether at sea there should not be the equivalent of what is known on land as a safety officer?
There could be one such officer in each working group. Even in big establishments there are small groups of half a dozen people or fewer in, for example, a department, and one of them has special responsibilities. We all know that when something is everybody's responsibility, it is nobody's responsibility. There is great value in having one person in a working group who is seen as the safety officer by his colleagues. That chap would need to take his training very seriously. He would certainly need some form of certification.

12 noon

Dr. Godman: There is merit in what my hon. Friend suggests because even on the smallest vessel someone should be responsible for good housekeeping and hygiene. Someone should be responsible for safety. Gear should not


be left to block passageways, and decks should be kept clear. We must remember that the shared system is dominant in the industry.

Mr. Mikardo: If some chaps were certificated they would be responsible for good housekeeping. They would ensure that gear did not block gangways because that might delay the crew if there were a fire. If ropes are left around the crew might trip over them. It is difficult on a trawler to keep everything spick and span, but someone must ensure that slippery floors are prevented. Above all someone must be responsible for ensuring that fire extinguishers are where they should be and that they are inspected regularly. A safety officer in a land-based industry would ensure all of that.
Safety is important at sea because, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan reminded us, the sea is very dangerous. No one would dream of running a coal mine without certificated trained safety officers. No one would dream of running a coal mine without a safety officer at every seam and for each group of workers, and yet casualities at sea are four times as great as they are in mining.
It is essential to ensure that the standards of safety training certification and the existence of safety officers is no lower than in the mining industry. Nothing in the clause ensures that. Subsection (1) is woolly. It is as woolly as stating that one is in favour of virtue and opposed to sin, without specifying anything on either side of the equation. The clause says that the Secretary of State "may" make regulations for training in safety. The phraseology could not be less decisive.
We shall not change the phraseology today, although the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan might find a noble Friend to steer the Bill through another place and to tighten the new clause.
We must have clear assurances from the Minister that he will make regulations. We must know what they will contain, when he will make them and what they will do.

Dr. Godman: I support the new clause in principle. Fishing is indeed a hazardous occupation with a high accident and death rate.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (M. Mikardo), particularly for his comments on the need for safety officers on vessels. "Safety officer" might not be the right title because all people on a vessel must be conscious of the need for good housekeeping. People on purse seiners, with crews of only 10 or 11, are detailed to carry out those important functions.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) expressed his sincere regret that the sea fisheries training council has been dissolved. As a member of that council, I share his regret. The trainee statistics outlined by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) involve people who first came to training by way of the group associations set up at the instigation of the sea fisheries training council under the excellent chairmanship of Mr. Frank Metcalf. The Scottish fishing industry was well represented on the training council.
I am pleased that the Sea Fish Industry Authority is providing systematic training, particularly for new entrants. I agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that there should be no age limit and that all entrants should receive training in safety matters.
Fire-fighting training is crucial to all seafarers, not only fishermen. Is the Minister satisfied with the level of

provision, and with the quality and quantity of firefighting training for fishermen? That is an important element in safety training.
Behind the fire station on McDonald road in Edinburgh there used to be a structure that looked something like a ship. In that simulated ship superstructure fishermen and Merchant Navy officers were trained in fire-fighting techniques. I dodged that appalling experience because I am a fair-weather fisherman. Young fishermen being trained for officer status with British trawler companies would enrol for a three-day course. They were trained to come to terms with trying to find their way out of living accommodation in pitch blackness. If there is a fire in the engine room, invariably the lighting goes and holds fill with smoke, often to toxic levels.
Only a small poportion of fishermen received that training. I understand that the fire-fighting training undertaken by fishermen currently lasts only one day. It is conducted and supervised by local fire brigades. What training do the trainers receive in dealing with fires at sea?
I put it to the Minister that a fire on a small fishing vessel may be quite different from a fire in a small factory, shop, or similar premises. I do not think that only one day devoted to fire-fighting training is acceptable to hon. Members or, more importantly, to the people undertaking such training. I believe that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that fire-fighting training as it exists is not approved by the Department. If so there are grounds for considerable concern. We need to look closely at such training. Is it being conducted at the back of a fire station?

Mr. McQuarrie: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Fire fighting is carried out at national network training centres under the supervision of the fire brigade in the area of the network. For example, in my constituency, officers of the Grampian fire service commendably go down to the training centre and give a full training course to the fishermen. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. The matter needs to be laid down by the Department in line, chapter and verse. I hope that the Minister will consider these important safety matters.

Dr. Godman: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I readily acknowledge his confidence in such fire brigades. I hope that the fire brigades in Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Aberdeen or points further south and in fishing ports have been trained in fire-fighting techniques in ports and harbours. I do not have the conviction of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan about fighting fires at sea. I repeat, are the trainers trained in the most up-to-date techniques in combating this dreadful menace at sea, not just when a vessel is tied up in a harbour? I put those questions in all seriousness.
Will the Minister give assurances about the quality and quantity of such training? Do fishermen receive refresher training in fire fighting? Are changes in the design of vessels a consideration in retraining in fire-fighting techniques? The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will readily acknowledge that there is much difference between an aging Aberdeen side trawler—in terms of design, layout, crew accommodation, fish room, and so on—and the most modern Norwegian designed purse seiners sailing out of Whalsay, or perhaps towns in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Is the Minister satisfied with the provision of first aid training for fishermen? What is the quality of such


training? I am not embarking on a knocking exercise. I am not demolishing, castigating or denigrating the activities of the training specialists with the Sea Fish Industry Authority, the senior member of which is one of the finest training officers in western Europe, Mr. Ken Waind, who worked with the sea fisheries training council for many years. Is the Department satisfied with the quality of the training in first aid techniques which is offered to fishermen or which fishermen undertake compulsorily?
12.15 pm
Survival training is important. I understand that wet survival training consists of a three-day course, usually conducted in the local swinning baths. The trainees have to enter a raft while fully clothed. It might be worth considering that part of survival training, because in future men may have to enter a raft while attired in a survival suit. That matter may need to be considered by the Minister and his officials. Are drills considered to be part of survival training?

Mr. David Mitchell: indicated assent

Dr. Godman: The Minister nods his assent. I am pleased to receive such an assurance, even from a sedentary position. I sometimes wonder how regularly drills are conducted. I have seen entries in log books that do not accord with what has taken place. Does survival training include the need for taking part in drills?
I should like regulations to incorporate the requirement that all entrants should undergo compulsory pre-training. I should like also regular medical checks of established fishermen. However, that may not have much to do with training. I should like to see the establishment of refresher training.
Is the Minister able to answer a question about funding the training function? A few minutes ago, in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that such funding would be provided by the Sea Fish Industry Authority until 1989. What will happen after 1989? The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and I know of the serious reservations of fishermen about a levy on their landings to be used for training. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) have also encountered those reservations—another form of ear bashing. Members of the sea fisheries training council were deeply unhappy at the prospect of a training levy being inflicted upon them following the dissolution of that excellent training body. Is it the case that in agriculture training is not paid for by the farmers? Does the state provide training in that industry? If the answer is yes, surely the same should hold for the fishing industry.

Mr. Randall: I think that we are all pleased with the new clause, and the reason is clear. The fishing industry is extremely hazardous, and anything that saves lives must have our attention. In principle, the Labour party is pleased with the new clause, but we have some reservations about its form.
It is crucial that fishermen should undergo training. There is no question about that. Whether such training is provided voluntarily by the industry or by the state is not of prime importance; it is important that the training takes place. The Minister said that fishing was four times more

hazardous than coalmining, which was an interesting measure of the seriousness of the problem. By extrapolating the results of safety and training measures introduced in the coal industry, we can produce the type of arguments which hon. Members have already advanced this morning to strengthen the case for the new clause.
I am glad that the industry is prepared to support the notion that a training measure should be laid down in statute. Presumably, it is prepared to contribute to the fees associated with such training. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point.
If fishermen undergo training, lives will be saved. It is therefore important for it to be comprehensive and effective. A new training regime that is not sufficiently comprehensive will not save lives. We have shown that we all desperately want to save lives by supporting the new clause in principle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Popular—my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is also popular—mentioned that the new clause was not sufficiently specific about the training aspects that should be embraced. Subsection (1) states:
The Secretary of State may make regulations".
We all know as legislators that that is a weak part of the sentence. "May" implies that the Secretary of State will either make the regulations, or he will not, according to his views. I question whether it is advisable for the House to give such discretion to the Minister in view of the importance of the matter which has been highlighted by hon. Members. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar, I should like the first part of the new clause to be strengthened to ensure that we know what specific training aspects will be introduced. We want to ensure that they are all sufficiently comprehensive.
Hon. Members need to know what departmental action will ensue. We want to be able to monitor that action so that when we hear from people in the industry of instances in which training has failed we can question the Minister at the Dispatch Box and ask for a statement that training standards will be of the appropriate quality.
The point raised about the trainers is crucial because we all clearly know that to have inferior trainers who do not have appropriate knowledge of the details of safety on board fishing vessels would render training arrangements to an unacceptable form. We must ensure that those who attend training courses are issued with a certificate signed by the appropriate authority and showing that the fisherman has undergone training.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), referred to having a safety officer on board the fishing vessel. It might seem a little absurd to have such an officer on board a small vessel with only three or four fishermen—it is difficult to sustain the argument in that case—but it would be a good idea to have a person responsible for ensuring that safety rules were adhered to on board fishing vessels with a crew of nine, 10 or 11, such as those that operate from Scotland.
People in my constituency have told me that equipment lying around on deck can fall and cause fishermen to lose limbs, their fingers or a hand. These are regular occurrences which often ensue from situations where equipment is left on deck where people can trip over it, fall down hatches and so on. Someone should be made responsible for safety, as with fire officers in buildings and


office blocks, whether public or private companies. A fire officer is usually responsible for a certain part of a building so that in the event of a fire, or even during training, he is there to advise and guide and ensure that people know what to do in the event of a hazard or fire.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the mining industry, to which reference has been made by comparing accident statistics and hazards, there is usually someone with special responsibility for safety even in groups as small as four or five? The predominant training aspects in the mining industry are safety and health rather than production.

Mr. Randall: I am grateful for that intervention, because it is an interesting parallel and it shows that the absurdity I mentioned earlier may not be sustained when one can see that there are safety officers in the mining industry for small groups.
That is especially important, where skippers, who should have overall responsibility on a boat, fail to be responsible for safety. I was told of an example about two years ago and I sent information about it to the Department of Transport. It referred to two young trainees who were on a Spanish fishing vessel that had gone on to the United Kingdom register. That technique has been used extensively by the Spanish fishing vessel owners. They have agents in places such as Plymouth and they have so far ducked inspection by the Department of Transport and get away with blue murder. Some of my constituents told me the story of those two young trainees. I could not establish whether they were on statutory or private training schemes. However, they were nearly decapitated. They were very young, only about 16 or 17 years old. The agent was asked what training the skipper had to offer. In that instance we found that the skipper spoke only Spanish and he was responsible for looking after and supervising training. It is ludicrous to have a trainer who does not even speak the same language as the trainees, and it resulted in two young people nearly being decapitated.

Mr. Mikardo: In case there is any confusion about whether small groups need a safety officer, I can say that not only the mining industry provides a safety officer for groups as small as four or five. Surface industries do so, too. For example, in a large factory with many people one can have a specialist store, such as an embodiment store, where only four or five people work. One of them is always a safety officer.

Mr. Randall: As we proceed with the debate it is interesting to see that we are establishing the fact that there are a number of precedents for this kind of safety officer, or whatever we would call him. That is encouraging.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) referred to the Sea Fish Industry Authority and funding. I am glad to hear that he has been in contact with the SFIA and that at least some short-term funding would be available. That is very encouraging and one presumes that it would enable training to proceed. The SFIA is a statutory organisation, and like all such organisations it is currently suffering from cuts in its funding. I wonder how it will find the money for this training programme. I am also concerned that subsection (2) is unspecific. With the tightness of money and an unspecific provision, we might end up with a tatty form of training. Will the Minister comment on that?

Dr. Godman: I understand some of my hon. Friend's reservations about the SFIA, but in fairness I must point out that its involvement in training is carried out by competent, highly trained people. Surely the question at issue is the continuation of funds for training.

Mr. Randall: My hon. Friend is certainly right on his latter point. Continuation of funding is absolutely crucial, but we are in the dark on that point. I have a great deal of time for the SFIA as an organisation and fully accept that it has many skilled people. However, we are talking about a not insubstantial programme of fishing training, and it surprises me to learn that the SFIA has the money to fund it. If it has, I am glad.
I agree with my hon. Friends that training should take place for all people, irrespective of age or whether they are on a youth training scheme for a limited period. It is important that before people go to sea they have the necessary training to ensure that they are protected and can help to protect others on the vessel.
Under subsection (2), if someone goes to sea without training he will have committed an offence and be liable to a level 2 fine. If the skipper or the owner of a vessel commits an offence, he will be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5. I am not sure about the fines for level 2 and level 5, so perhaps the Minister could explain. If the fines are not large, there could be an incentive for the owners and skippers not to adhere to the rules.
I have already referred to the Spanish fishing vessels being operated by such companies as Clearmaine in Plymouth. I do not have much time for the operations of such cowboys. I know about the appalling treatment of men who go to sea on these vessels, and I want to ensure that such organisations do not feel that they can pay the fine and not bother to embark on a training programme.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend has raised an important point about subsection (2). I, too, am a little unhappy about it because it appears that the responsibility for determining whether, for example, a young lad of 17 has been trained rests wholly and solely with the skipper. Such a young man could be encouraged to sail on a vessel although he may be in complete ignorance of the rules. Does my hon. Friend agree that the responsibility should rest with the master of the vessel?

Mr. Randall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Subsection (2) reads:
The regulations may provide that if a person goes to sea on a fishing vessel in contravention of a requirement of the regulations—
(a) he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2, or if he is the skipper or an owner of the vessel level 5".
Paragraph (b) states:
the skipper and each owner of the vessel is…liable on summary conviction to a fine

Mr. Austin Mitchell: As well.

Mr. Randall: That is absolutely right. Fines can be levied on both the person who goes to sea, and the skipper or the owner.

Dr. Godman: This is an important point of principle. In what other industry is there such a regulation whereby the person who has not sought training faces the possibility of court action? Young lads might be ignorant of such a statutory requirement.

Mr. Randall: That is an interesting point. I should like the Minister to answer that question because it is he who drafted the clause. That is a valid point. Is that discriminatory in that industry as opposed to other industries? I do not want to pre-empt the Minister's reply, but I imagine that the reason why the clause has been put in that some boats might have very small crews, but I shall leave that form is that matter for the Minister rather than trying to anticipate what he will say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow also supported the notion of some sort of training officer. I was particularly interested to hear about firefighting. I shall not develop the argument to a great extent, but it seemed that, in making that point, my hon. Friend was referring to the quality of the trainers. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan knows of instances where the local fire brigade comes in and does the training. I presume, although I cannot be sure, that the fire brigade ensures that it up to date on the latest technology of fire fighting in a confined diesel engine quarter on board a vessel. It is a specialised form of fire-fighting. It is important to have an assurance that the quality of the trainers would be up to the necessary standard.

Mr. McQuarrie: As the hon. Gentleman represents a fishing constituency—we both do—I am sure that he will be aware that the fire authorities take care that they know the latest fire fighting techniques for all modern ships. As was said by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), the fire fighting people have to be up to the mark on the latest techniques because of the possible dangers in harbours. For example, Peterhead is a busy harbour. Any one vessel on fire could create a catastrophe unless the fire fighters were familiar with the latest methods.

Mr. Randall: The whole point is whether the matter is dealt with in statute or whether we reply on the local authority which controls the fire brigade.
In principle, we ar happy with the notion of new clause 2. However, it needs considerable tightening up along the lines that I have suggested. It would be better to be more specific in the areas that we cover. In particular, we should include survival, fire fighting and first aid. The clause should be worded in such a way that the Minister could add any other area of training that he deemed desirable. I shall not attempt to phrase that now, but it could be done in an acceptable way. Bearing in mind the points that I have made on enforcement, the Opposition are happy in pinciple with new clause 2.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: This important new clause arises from the assiduous efforts of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), who prised it out of the Government. The original Bill included the provision, which was withdrawn at the Minister's suggestion because he wished it to be clear that the industry should finance training.
The Bill now contains a commitment to and requirement for training, which is an important advance. It is important because the industry's record on training, although it has been self-congratulatory, has been disappointing and poor. It was especially poor in the days of the big owners who fished in Icelandic waters. The port of Grimsby was dominated by a small clique of big owners

running large vessels and fishing on an enormous scale. They were making money for the day and paying no attention to the future or to training.
The position has not improved with the change in the industry. The big owners have gone, but at least they formed a coherent organisation, even though it was a mafia. It has given way to a collection of small business men working on a small scale and not paying attention to training. Therefore, training has had to be encouraged from outside. The training of fishermen has a long history of pressure from outside producing change in the industry. I hope that it will be pushed further by the new clause.

Dr. Godman: On the history of training in the industry, is my hon. Friend aware that the record in the traditional inshore sector before the advent of the sea fisheries training council in the late 1970s was abysmal?

Mr. Mitchell: I entirely agree, and that is what makes me emphasise the pressures from outside the industry. Training is not adequate at present, and we must keep up the pressure on the industry.
Fishing is extremely perilous. If people are sent to sea inadequately trained in all safety matters—fire or survival—they are put at an unjustifiable and serious risk. We have a responsibility to provide training through this new clause.
I hope that the Minister will answer the questions at greater length than he did the questions on the previous new clause. When he spoke briefly on the previous new clause, I thought that he was taking to heart my comments on Second Reading when I accused him of spinning out his reply in an attempt to talk out later legislation. That accusation cannot be levelled at the Minister today in the light of the remaining legislation on the Order Paper. I hope that he will give us a more adequate reply to the questions that have been asked about new clause 2.
First, the definition of training in the Bill is deficient. It is not specific enough and will be interpreted in a restricted fashion. The industry must be pushed into change and adequate training. If we retained the simple and complacent definition of training in the Bill, the pressure would be that much harder to apply because people would not exert themselves. The Bill should set out specific areas in which training should be applied rather than contain a general definition. The Minister held out the possibility of training in fire fighting and survival. He can make that prospect a firm reality by specifying it in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said, why should the definition be so restrictive?
Secondly, as has been pointed out, the new clause does not insure that training will take place, and we need to be sure of that, It is not so much good making a statement of good intentions—we all do that—as providing the backing and the framework for the training and the courses that will ensure tha the training is carried out.
Thirdly, we come back to the vexed question of cost. The insistence that the industry finances its training is untenable because of the financial state of the industry. There will be a horrendous reaction to a training levy, which will be bitterly resisted. That will set back training because the levy and training will become indentified, which will prejudice the industry against training.
What is more, the suggestion comes ill from a Government who have not advanced training and who


have given a severe blow to training in the fishing industry. Three or four years ago, they abolished the sea fisheres training council, which was a viable organisation providing good courses and training, was working well and stimulating the industry to train. I think that it was financed by the Manpower Services Commission, but it was financed independently, and did a good job. It was well run and was far-sighted because it involved people from the industry and good courses. I welcomed the efforts that it made. It was a creation of the Labour Government, which might have prejudiced this Government, but it was vandalism to abolish it.
We then had the substitute of the Sea Fish Industry Authority training section, which is financed by Government. Its finance continues to the end of this year. The government have accepted a commitment and should sustain it in view of the financial position of the industry. The Government seem to sustain that commitment in other industries, especially in agriculture, the spoilt darling of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As the Minister has the portfolio, can he tell us what is the position with Merchant Navy training? Is it financed completely by the industry or is there Government input? I do not see a training levy as being acceptable to the industry.
The clause is welcome, but we are worried about the way in which the promise implicit in it will be fulfilled. We hope that with Government support—about which I hope the Minister will tell us—we can persuade the industry to pay more attention to training.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar raised a series of questions about why there were no details of courses and the curriculum. It would not be appropriate to put the details of that in primary legislation and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) says, those involved in the industry are aware of the training that is available. To help the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar, I point out that the Department will approve the curriculum when it comes, and some idea of it can be gained from the courses that are carried out as survival at sea courses by the SFIA, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.
For example, I have here a copy of the courses that are used. The courses are on such matters as action before abandonment, drills and their value, use of liferafts, clothing and the importance of maintaining body heat, panic and its consequence, and abandonment.
The course also contains liferaft drill, description and use of liferaft ancillary equipment. water entry from height and righting a capsized liferaft. There are also various survival measures such as protection which includes such matters as the treatment of injured survivors, and the problems of water and food which includes such matters as survival rations, and medical aspects, including hypothermia and cold injuries. There is also the important matter of helicopter rescue techniques. Now that the coast guard service has much better equipment, accidents can be located more quickly and rescues made.
The Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Regulations 1975 recognise that skippers of vessels over 12m must ensure that crew members are trained in the use of life saving equipment and that training is carried out at monthly intervals.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar also called for the provision of safety officers. He may have failed to recognise—I do not blame him because he is not intimately involved with the industry—the duty which is placed on a skipper to be responsible for safety. The hon. Gentleman also called for certificates to be issued to those who completed training courses, as did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). I can assure him that we shall ensure that certificates are provided.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked about fire fighting. A two-day course on fire fighting approved by the Department of Transport can be attended by fishermen on a voluntary basis and there is a one-day course which is not approved by us. Where courses are approved the Department is satisfied with the standard of the course. I accept that there are no arrangements at present for refresher courses for fire fighting, and I shall bear that in mind. The hon. Gentleman also asked about first-aid training. That is necessary for skippers and second hands to obtain certificates of competence, so that is adequately dealt with.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked who pays. He may recall that there was considerable discussion in Committee on payment. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) made it clear that he thought it appropriate for all training costs to fall on the industry, and I do not dissent from that view. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West also asked whether we intended to use the powers that we are seeking in the new clause. I can reassure him that it is our intention to do so, subject to agreement with the industry about payment.
I was also asked about Spanish flagged-in vessels. I readily recognise the widespread unease about such vessels, especially in the south-west. Surveys in accordance with the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Regulations 1975 have been completed on 43 ex-Spanish vessels that are flagged onto the United Kingdom flag. The standards applied were exactly the same as on other United Kingdom fishing vessels. There are currently a further 14 ex-Spanish fishing vessels. Of those, one is undergoing survey, another has been detained at Plymouth, three are laid up in Spain, and the remaining nine are operating and are overdue for survey. The problem with them is that they rarely come to the United Kingdom. Renewed efforts are being made to get surveys carried out on them or to get them off the United Kingdom register. I am sure that hon. Members welcome that.
1 pm
Language has been mentioned. Section 48 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 enables a superintendent to order a ship not to go to sea if he thinks that the crew do not have a proper knowledge of English. That is an important consideration in regard to the Spanish vessels.
I was asked about the level of fines. I believe that I can give the House the assurance that it seeks. Level 2 is £200 and level 5, which applies to the skipper, is £2,000. Hon. Members will agree that they are pretty effective and powerful deterrents to abuse.
In view of that additional explanation, I hope that the House will feel it right to accept new clause 2.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Jack Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you give me some help and guidance on a matter that has come to my attention this morning? It is


reported in The Times Higher Education Supplement that a Minister in the Department of Education and Science has offered misleading information about his educational qualifications in his "Who's Who" entry. It is important to me and others in education.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have no responsibility for what appears in The Times or any other newspaper.

Clause 4

POWER TO PRESCRIBE FURTHER REQUIREMENTS

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 16 leave out 'those sections' and insert `sections 1 to 3'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10.

Mr. Mitchell: The amendments in this group are of a purely technical and drafting nature.
Amendment No. 2 makes it clear that regulations under clause 4 can provide more detailed requirements for the duty in clause 3 to carry lifejackets, and not just for the duties in clauses 1 and 2, for example, regulations can be made specifying where the lifejackets must be carried, such as some on deck.
Amendment No. 3 is a purely drafting amendment, to make it clear that, where there is a reference to section 1, 2 or 3, it is a reference to the section as amplified or extended by regulations under clause 4. Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 10 make drafting changes consequential on this. The amendments will make the bill read more easily.

Mr. McQuarrie: I have had considerable discussions on these amendments with my hon. Friend the Minister and my noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for shipping. I accept that they are drafting amendments and I am happy to ask the House to accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 2, line 19 at end insert—
(2) References in this Act or elsewhere to the requirements of sections I to 3 are to those requirements as amplified or extended under this section.'.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Clause 5

ENFORCEMENT

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 2, line 23, leave out '2 and 4' and insert 'and 2'.

No. 6, in page 2, line 28, leave out 2 and 4' and insert 'and 2'.

No.8, in page 2, line 37, leave out '4' and insert '3'.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Clause 6

OFFENCES

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 2, line 41, leave out '4' and insert '3'—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Clause 7

EXEMPTIONS

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 3, line 10, leave out `sections 1 to 4' and insert:
'this Part or section (Training in safety matters)'—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Clause 8

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO REGULATIONS

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 3, line 15, leave out 'Act and insert
'Part or section (Training in safety matters)'

No. 15, in page 3, line 19, leave out 'Act and insert
`Part or section (Training in safety matters)'

No. 16, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'Act and insert 'Part or section (Training in safety matters)'

No. 17, in page 3, line 28, leave out 'foregoing provisions of this Act' and insert
'provisions of this Part or section (Training in safety matters)'

No. 18, in page 3, line 31, leave out
'Act or any enactment amended by this Act'
and insert
'Part or section (Training in safety matters) or any enactment amended by this Part or section (Training in safety matters)'—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Clause 13

POWER TO EXTEND PROVISIONS TO OTHER TERRITORIES AND VESSELS

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 5, line 33, after
'Part I', insert
'or section (Training in safety matters)'—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. McQuarrie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In its leader article of 24 April 1986, The Press and Journal said:
If but one life is saved by these changes now in sight it will be time and money well spent and Mr. McQuarrie is to be congratulated on his persistence in the face of opposition from within sections of the Industry itself, let it be said, in pressing forward his Bill. He can claim if the modified measures eventually become law, to have achieved significant advances in making life less hazardous for the seafarer.
I am grateful to the Fishing Journal for its considerable support for the Bill. In its leader of 2 May, the Fishing News said:
while his Bill is certainly not in the form which he envisaged, at least he has drawn attention to the tragic safety record in the fishing industry, and the Bill will still make a contribution towards improving safety.
I am grateful to Harry Barrett, managing director, and Ian Stewart, the editor of Fishing News,for the massive coverage which has been given to the Bill to highlight its importance in improving safety at sea for fishermen.
Little did I realise when I secured fourth place in the ballot for private Member's Bills in September 1985 how much time and effort I would need to devote to the relatively simple matter, as I then thought, of making life a little safer for fishermen. I am wiser now. The process of setting down precise and effective proposals for radio beacons, automatic release arrangements for liferafts, the carriage of lifejackets on small fishing vessels and training


has been difficult and challenging. It has also been immensely worth while. It was a process which I started but I was assisted greatly subsequently by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am grateful for that help.
It is only right that I draw attention especially to the invaluable advice and support that I have received from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport, and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibilities for shipping. I thank the shipping industry for its close and sympathetic interest in the Bill.
I cannot let this occasion pass without expressing my grateful thanks to colleagues on both sides of the House for their wholehearted support for the Bill, including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), who spoke so eloquently from the Opposition Dispatch Box today. I am deeply grateful to him. I thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for his wonderful contributions. I must include also in these thanks the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). The right hon. Gentleman has been present throughout every stage of the Bill's consideration and I am grateful to him for his support.
The frustrations which have been felt in not obtaining some of the provisions that we all wanted to see in the Bill have been overcome to a great extent by the support that has been given to me throughout the Bill's various stages.
I wish to thank also Mr. Andrew Thomson, Mr. Terry Hayward and the staff and work force of Dunlop-Beaufort for the tremendous assistance which they have given to me in promoting the Bill.
There are many others who have given support and they are too numerous to mention. I hope that they will see the passing of the Bill as yet another step in creating improved safety measures for the industry. That is what the Bill seeks to do for an extremely important industry and for those who go down to the sea and provide us with the fish for our table.
The sea is a dangerous place, and being a fisherman is a dangerous occupation, and it will always be so. Nevertheless, I think that the Bill can make a small but significant contribution to the fisherman's safety. I hope that in another place the Bill will be regarded in that light. If it saves fishermen from drowning, means fewer widows, fewer sorrowing parents and fewer fatherless children, and results in less need for tears and mourning, it will have achieved what many of my constituents asked me to do. I hope that the House will allow it to proceed to another place on its way to the statute book.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I wish to make a short intervention to congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on his Bill reaching Third Reading. Tragedies at sea are nothing new, and there was a great need for some tightening of safety procedures to ensure safety as far as possible for our fishermen. There have been several tragedies off the north of Scotland even during the time that the Bill has been passing through the House.
I regret that the requirement for the wearing of lifejackets that was set out in the original Bill has not been achieved. As I said at that time, it seemed that there would be little interference with fishermen working on deck if

they wore the lifejacket that we saw at an exhibition. I am pleased that the safety clause has been introduced. Some caveats were entered but it is important that it will now he a statutory requirement for a fisherman to receive some training in safety.
The debates which I have attended have been marked by co-operation and helpfulness from the Minister. That can be said of him throughout the Bill's various stages. I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan again. He has done a service to the fishing industry and to the fishermen themselves. That may not be appreciated all the time by everyone, but those of us who can stand back and who know something about the industry realise that he has performed a signal service. I am sure that he will have the thanks of fishermen and their dependants in the years ahead.

Mr. Mikardo: I, too, will keep the House for only about a minute. May I first warmly thank the Minister for the comprehensive answers that he gave to the questions that I raised during the last debate?
I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on piloting the Bill through the House. He deserves his success not only because the Bill is worthy, but because of his forthcoming attitude towards the interventions made and to the ideas put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am a great eater of fish. I never put a knife into a piece of fish without giving a silent thanks to the fishermen who have gone out to catch it, especially during the bad weather of last winter.
I do not have any fishermen in my constituency, but there is a large fish market there and its prosperity and the employment of some of my constituents depend on the work of those fishermen. They do a great job for us all. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was being a bit modest about the Bill, but it is something that the fishermen well deserve. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on it, and hope that it will have as pleasant a passage in the other place as it has had in this House.

Dr. Godman: I shall be brief. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). As someone from a fishing family, I am very grateful to him for the Bill. Any measure that improves the safety of fishermen as they go about their most hazardous occupation must be welcomed by everyone. I never want to read again of men dying despite the fact that they have reached the relative sanctuary of an inflatable liferaft. That is what happened to Harry Eddom's two comrades. I never want to hear again of men going over the side, as those French fishermen did from the Snekkar Arctic, without protective suits, and perishing while their comrades who wore such suits survived.
I am very pleased with the way in which the Bill has been debated. It deserves every success. I look forward to the day when, in addition to the commendable changes made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, fishing vessels will carry immersion suits for their crews.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I enthusiastically join in congratulating the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on his Bill. It represents a very real achievement. I hope that it will become known as the McQuarrie Bill, as it is an important measure and the effort


that he has put into it and the fact that he introduced it in the first place warrant the attachment of his name to it. I can testify to what an ordeal it is to promote a private Member's Bill. The hon. Member concerned has to be a Government Department holding consultations, a publicist, and a public relations officer, and he has to use his own wit as well. It is an enormous job for the average Back Bencher.
The Bill is important. Most of those hon. Members present have fishing interests or fishing constituencies that have tragic roll calls. At the harvest of the sea service in Grimsby there used to be a roll call of those who had died in the fishing industry during the preceding year. There were always between a half dozen and a dozen names, and sometimes more. The figures now are not quite as horrifying as when we fished in Icelandic waters. Then, the loss of a vessel meant an enormous roll call. Nowadays there is a steady toll of one or two, but that toll is still high.
The shrinking of the industry has not brought down the death toll proportionately, perhaps because the industry is facing difficult financial times and corners are being cut, or perhaps because small vessels are used these days. Safety has not improved as it should have done.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan should be congratulated also because fishing is never given adequate attention. That is partly because hon. Members representing fishing constituencies are few. We do not form a strong caucus, but we try to put across the needs and demands of fishing. It has become the poor relation of agriculture.
A private Member's Bill was probably the only way to succeed in tackling the problem. I am glad that the hon. Member devoted his opportunity to this measure. His Bill provides for a safer existence for fishermen. Fishing will never be absolutely safe. It will never be the same as working on land, but the Bill provides for a safer existence for many hundreds of my constituents who still fish in distant and in not-so-distant waters. There can be no greater achievement in the House than that.

Mr. Randall: I have one small regret about the Bill, In Committee I asked the Minister about the exploitation of fishermen by Spanish fishing vessels. The Minister mentioned that briefly today and I received a letter from him, but I have not had time to table an amendment or to react in any other way.
In Committee I explained how many redundant fishermen have gone to sea on Spanish vessels which, by exploiting the flag of convenience, are on the United Kingdom register. Some of my constituents have gone to sea in vessels which do not have lavatories, safety equipment, liferafts, food or wet weather equipment. The vessels are infested with cockroaches. Men have gone to sea and come back after 10 days owing the company £2 or £3 because of excessive charges for wet weather gear and other equipment. That is terrible exploitation.
I raised the matter with the Department of Transport two years ago and at the end of the Committee proceedings I asked the Minister to look into that exploitation. In his letter the Minister tells me that his officials are now doing that. They are considering with the industry's representatives whether something can be done or whether an EEC initiative is possible.
Safety at sea is at stake. I hope that the Minister will pursue the matter and ensure that if such vessels do not come in for surveys they will be struck off the list and that if they dodge the regulations by landing catches in Cork, so avoiding the system, he will take action.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on a magnificent job. Steering a Bill through the House of Commons is difficult. It is a task that takes a lot of time and effort. I believe that people in the industry will be grateful for many years to come. The Bill will save lives. It will ensure that families are not deprived of their breadwinner. It will mean that there will not be so many widows, or children without fathers. Although it is not an overwhelming step forward it is a crucial and important step which will improve the safety and wellbeing of those who work in a hazardous industry.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am happy to join those who have wished the Bill a successful and rapid passage on to the statute book. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) referred to Spanish vessels and the United Kingdom flag. If he reads the Hansardreport of what I said earlier today, he will find a satisfactory explanation on how we intend to proceed.
I wish to clarify a matter which was raised in Committee, and that is the cost of emergency position indicating radio beacons—more usually called EPIRBs—which transmit on 406 MHz. We were asked what they were likely to cost when they came on the market. A figure of £2,000 was mentioned, compared with the £800 or so that I had been informed was the expected price. Accordingly, I arranged for the four companies which may manufacture the equipment to be contacted again to ascertain the latest position on cost. I am told that £850 is the target price for 406 megahertz EPIRBs. So there is no misunderstanding, I should add that the expression "target price" is carefully chosen. The manufacturers have yet to cost fully what the selling price will be. Therefore, I am advised that the words "estimated price" should be avoided in that context at this stage.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister clarify a point? I should have raised it earlier. Arising from those cost estimates, what will be the transitional period during which people who have installed the 121 MHz equipment will be allowed to continue operating it before being asked to instal the 406 MHz equipment? The matter is causing some concern in the industry, particularly on cost grounds.

Mr. David Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman cares to table a question on that, I shall give him an answer which will be in a public form.
The life and work of a fisherman involve risk and danger. The sea can change swiftly from the joy of seaside bathing weather to a cruel and deadly menace. We enjoy the fish brought by those who take those risks and, as we eat the harvest of the sea, we rarely give a moment's thought to those who were involved in catching it. We must recognise the inevitable risks involved in that occupation. All hon. Members, as representatives of the consumer, owe a debt to fishermen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), through his initiative and determination, has given us an opportunity to help make the role of fishermen


slightly less dangerous. The House, the fishing industry and the Government have every reason to be grateful to my hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Civil Protection in Peacetime Bill.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

PRELIMINARY

Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 21. at end insert—
'"train" and "training" shall include the holding of exercises for members of local authority staffs and persons undertaking to serve as volunteers for the purpose of improving the preparedness of those persons to carry out any plans made under subsection 2 of section 2 of this Act.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 2, in page 2, line 15, leave out
'perform that function so as to allow'
and insert
having regard to the subject matter of those plans, make, keep under review and revise plans',
No. 4, in clause, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—`(3)—A local authority may

(a) train
(b) arrange for the training of, and
(c) arrange for the attendance at any training course of suitable members of their own staff (and in the case of a county council, a fire and civil defence authority or in Scotland a regional counil the staff of any district council, London borough or the City of London in their area) for the purpose of carrying out any plans made under subsection (2) above.
(4) A local authority may

(a) train
(b) arrange for the training of, and
(c) Arrange for the attendance at any training course of any suitable person who undertakes to serve otherwise than for payment as a volunteer any suitable person who undertakes to serve otherwise then for payment as a volunteer with a view to assisting that authority in the carrying out of any plan made under sub-section (2) above.
(5) A local authority may, in relation to any plan made under subsection (2) above, at any time.

(a)take such preparatory steps as may be necessary to ensure that those plans can be carried out;
(b)carry out any of those plans for the purpose of averting, alleviating or eradicating the effects of any such emergency or disaster.'

Mr. Corbett: With a little more foresight and a lot more generosity, we should have tabled amendments to protect the Government from fallout from last night's council elections and by-elections. We are, of course, too late for that now.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 concern training and implementation powers which are missing from the Bill. The Bill extends the planning functions of the GLAF regulations to civil protection, but does not seem to permit proper and systematic training of either staff or volunteers for this purpose. That would appear to leave a large hole in the Bill's provisions.
I understand that, in practice, fire and civil defence authorities would lack a power to train, and the shire counties and Scottish regions would have to use powers under section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972. That must be unsatisfactory. Councils have no powers to spend money on training to cope with civil protection, and the shires and the Scots can do so only by an addition to the


rates bill. It is not an exaggeration to say that the effect in practice will be to inhibit or prevent proper training. The Bill's provisions will simply be ignored as other spending priorities in the shires and in Scotland compete and, I regret to say, inevitably win.
I do not believe that this choice should have to be made. I do not doubt that that was not the intention of the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). All those who are concerned with training for coping with civil emergencies should be on the same footing with respect to financing those responsbilities under the Bill.
The need for this is dramatically underlined by the Chernobyl disaster. The hesitation, confusion and, I regret to say, secrecy apparent in the Government's response have been bad enough in the context of a nuclear disaster 2,000 miles from our shores, but imagine how much more serious it would have been had the wind been in a different directon or had an accident occurred, not 2,000 miles away on the other side of Europe, but at a coastal nuclear power station 20 milies away on the coast of France.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Or in Britain.

Mr. Corbett: Yes.
The hon. Member for Upminster referred in Committee to the possibility of an accident at a French reactor. With a stronger wind coming in a different direction, the radiation fallout from Chernobyl would have been much more serious. It would have been even more serious if the disaster had occurred 20 miles away across the Channel or on the United Kingdom mainland.
The amendments are designed to ensure that training of staff volunteers in planning and carrying out measures to cope with peacetime civil emergencies can and does take place. The basis of the funding of those important activities should, as far as possible, be on the same footing.
Amendment No. 2 aims to ensure that the plans and procedures are not simply made, shelved and forgotten but are kept under review and revised on a regular systematic basis to meet changed needs. I shall give an example from my constituency. A new M6 relief road is to be built north of Birmingham to tempt traffic away from the crumbling elevated sections of the M6 between junction 5 via spaghetti junction and junction 7, which is north. The building of that new road and the diversion of the northbound traffic will make it necessary for those concerned with these matters in the west midlands who revise whatever plans now exist to deal with serious accidents—it is put no higher than that—near spaghetti junction and with the particular problems that arise in dealing with accidents on that elevated section.
There is a need also for constant revision, review and updating of these plans. For example, planting a toxic waste disposal plant for a factory using toxic or dangerous chemicals or gases will clearly alter the needs. It is a right and a duty of councils and the fire and civil defence authorities quickly and properly to respond to those changed circumstances.
The Bill needs to give clear and specific guidance and to lay down a duty to ensure as far as possible that the training of staff and volunteers takes place and that the plans are regularly reviewed and updated to ensure that they are the best that can be put in place. That is the purpose of the amendments. Perhaps I can give the

Minister an illustration. I hope that when the impact of the dreadful events at Chernobyl has ended for the United Kingdom, the Government will review how they coped with the problem, what worked, what went wrong and why, and what changes and improvements need to be made at national and local level to cope with any future emergencies. I hope that the Government can be persuaded to publish the results of that review so that we in the House and those outside who are understandably concerned and alarmed about these matters can join in the debate and try to get reassurance from it.
1.30 pm
It is no exaggeration to say that thousands, if not millions, of people are at least puzzled and perplexed about what has been happening in the wake of the dreadful disaster in the Soviet Union. A woman who is coming to my surgery tonight told me that since news of the disaster became available 12 days ago neither she nor her children have been outside their home and the children have been kept away from school.
It is all very well for people to say that there is no need to stay indoors because of what has been said by the National Radiological Protection Board and others. However, I mention that because we need publicly to learn all the lessons we can from this incident to ensure that we have the best defences in place when we need them.
We are very good—or, more accurately. bad—at muddling though and then trying to get the defences in place after the event. However, when dealing with dangerous materials such as nuclear waste, nuclear reactors, toxic chemicals and toxic gas we have to do our best to ensure that the plans, preparation and training are in place and that they are as sharp, refined and updated as we can make them. Only in that way can we properly reassure those we represent that we understand their concerns and that we are doing our best to ensure that they are recognised and met.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I comment on some of the specific points raised. The amendment is similar to that tabled and discussed in Committee, although I recognise that there is a slight difference in the wording.
I want to refer briefly to Chernobyl. Obviously, that is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I take note of the comment of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) about a report and statement. That seems to be a reasonable request and I shall pass it on to my right hon. Friend.
The accident at Chernobyl should give added force to our thoughts about the circumstances in which civil defence resources can play an important part. However, happily in relation to the United Kingdom's position to date, that has not been necessary. The accident was certainly an unavoidable reminder, if any were needed, of the dangers that radioactivity can pose. It also gives added weight to the Bill. Clearly, in the arrangements that we seek to make here there is an interconnection between the civil defence needs for military purposes and the very important use that can be made of the establishments, training and facilities in relation to peacetime needs.
There are some difficulties about the amendments. I should like to make the position clear. In Committee, we discussed an amendment in relation to section 138 powers


and that is beyond the scope of the Bill. However, I must emphasise again that it would be open to a local authority making civil defence plans to take account of the possible use of civil defence resources in peacetime emergencies, to record and maintain their plans with whatever degree of separation they wish and. if convenient, to collect whatever elements of the plan relate to peacetime emergencies and hold them separately. That would be in order.
The hon. Gentleman's point concerned the interconnection of the training costs and planning in relation to grant. The Bill makes it clear that for the payment of civil defence grant there must be a connection between the two and a similarity in civil emergency planning that can usefully be tackled in conjunction with the wartime emergency planning required under the Civil Defence Act 1948, and for which new regulations have been issued.
It is not intended that authorities should divert their civil defence staffs away from civil defence and concentrate on the preparation of plans to deal solely with peacetime emergencies. There is a clear danger that the amendment would encourage that. As I said in Committee, it is fundamental to the all-hazard approach that we attempt to fuse those two objectives in such a way that civil defence funds can legitimately be made available for peacetime training.
Amendment No. 2 presents particular difficulties. It is not enough to say that local authorities should plan for a possible emergency. I think that the hon. Gentleman's intention was that they should plan to take action to avert, alleviate or remove the potential effects of an emergency, and that is spelt out in clause 2(1). The whole power would be rather nebulous, and the amendment is rather awkward in what it tries to cover.
Amendment No. 4 seeks to enable local authorities to have trained staff and volunteers who would be involved in carrying out plans made under clause 2(2). Quite frankly, the amendment would add little to their powers. There are specific provisions in the Civil Defence Regulations 1983 that relate to civil defence, and the amendment would add nothing to civil defence plans.
If the aim is to make expenditure on such training eligible for civil defence grant, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that would not be possible because separate peacetime planning and any related training are not and cannot be civil defence functions. However, if they are related to wartime use, clearly they would become eligible for grant.
I must stress again the difficulty about separation. I understand the hon. Gentleman's intention in trying to create that separation, but this Bill amends the 1948 Act, and in relation to the clarification of where grant may be spent we must proceed in the prescribed manner. Indeed, we agreed in Committee that it would be sensible to proceed along that route.

Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Minister any estimate of the possible cost in which the Government could be involved if local authorities were able to go ahead and train for civil accidents and disasters not connected with wartime planning, and attract grant for that? The Minister seems to suggest that this is an economic argument.

Mr. Shaw: It is not really an economic argument. We are saying that the civil defence grant made available

within our total budget—which, off the cuff, I think is £8 million—that has been used for training purposes still has a little way to go before it is fully taken up. I am not making an economic argument, but clarifying the point that the intention of the Bill is to allow training establishments to serve both purposes so that the civil defence grant can be made available to serve both purposes, but not peacetime arrangements alone.

Mr. Corbett: I do not suggest that what the Minister has said about finance is an open invitation to what has become known as creative accounting. However, can he give the House an assurance that there will be a sensitive understanding of the need for flexibility? I understand his point about duality, but I want him to assure us that there will be some sensitivity about flexibility while meeting the point that he has urged on the House.

Mr. Shaw: I give the House that assurance. As I said in Committee, although at the moment the grant aid in the civil defence budget is marginally underspent, I would expect that, through the arrangements in the Bill and the regulations set out in 1983, local authorities would be encouraged to spend more on the establishment of correctly designed training schemes, appointments and capital expenditure. If that were so, I would wish to review the total amount of grant aid available.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I endorse what my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said about the amendment, and I have very little to add to it. However, it is worth commenting that the Chernobyl disaster, to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) referred, illustrates very well the close link between civil defence and peacetime planning in the dangerous world in which we now live. Since Second Reading, the emphasis on the way in which the training for both those eventualities should be done at the same time has been clarified. Radiation fallout is one of the peacetime risks for which we now have to prepare ourselves, so that strengthens rather than weakens the Government's case that it is important that the close link between civil defence and peacetime planning be maintained. It makes it easier for us to accept that, in doing so, we are making adequate preparation for the peacetime planning of rescue operations.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State and his Department will have to look closely, in the light of what has happened at Chernobyl, at how much more this country has to prepare itself for radiation fallout disasters in peace and war. The Bill, which is modest in its scope, will have a great role to play in ecouraging the expansion of Government policy along those lines.
I am glad to say that there has been little sign of opposition to the Bill's passage through the House, with great assistance from Opposition Members, but it is a little ironic that among those who have opposed the Bill is the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. In an article written before Chernobyl, the CND, explaining why it was so opposed to the Bill, said:
The main reasons why nuclear-free zones have to be worried about the passage of the Bill is that it legitimises the Government's new all-hazards approach to emergency planning, which aims to cloud over the clear distinction between preparing plans for civil contingencies and those for a nuclear attack.
The events since that article was written must demonstrate, even to those who wrote the article, that. far


from there being a clear distinction between the necessary civil preparation for disaster and for nuclear attack, there are great similarities in that area.
I add, on a wider note, that had the Air India aeroplane, which exploded off the Irish coast, been on time, that explosion would have occurred right over the heart of London. Had that happened, the consequences of a jumbo jet crashing in the middle of our crowded streets would have been horrific. The planning that can now be done and the use of the volunteer services, which I hope will shortly be there, to deal with both wartime and peacetime emergencies, will now be greatly strengthened so that, should any such horrific disaster occur, we will, for the first time, have a proper organisation to deal with it.
Therefore, I hope that the House will resist the amendments and allow the Bill to go forward for Third Reading.

Mr. Tony Banks: I was disappointed that the Minister could not accept the amendments, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, are intended to be helpful. I am sure that the Minister accepted that.
Unfortunately, I did not receive clear reasons, other than economic reasons, why the Minister was not prepared to accept the amendments. I concede that there has to be a connection between wartime and peacetime planning. I apologise to the Minister if I have misinterpreted his views, but he seemed to be saying that it is all right to have a spin-off into peacetime planning provided that it is essentially wartime planning. However, he did not seem to want to accept the connection in the other direction: that if local authorities were involved in exclusively peacetime planning, there would be a spin-off into wartime planning.
Conservative Members must understand that there is much sensitivity among Labour-controlled local authorities towards what is seen as essential wartime emergency planning. No rational or sane local authority—that means no authority that I can think of—would resist the idea of making proper plans for peacetime emergencies, and we have heard several examples of such emergencies today.
1.45 pm
We may be accused of being alarmist and over-dramatic if we talk about possible emergencies. We heard an account of what would have happened had the prevailing winds been different following the Chernobyl disaster. The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) mentioned the Air India disaster. That is a serious problem for London, and I am exclusively interested in London on this occasion, as on other occasions. Given the passage of heavy jets over London, the law of averages suggests that sooner or later, regrettably and tragically, one of them is likely to crash in central London. A couple of years ago, The London Standard described a possible scenario of a jumbo jet crashing on Victoria station. That was horrific. We are more likely to face that sort of disaster than all-out nuclear war, as Labour-controlled local authorities are acutely aware. That is why they would like to become involved in peacetime emergency planning disconnected from wartime planning and obtain the necessary grants from the Government to train staff and volunteers to cope with such tragic events.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman's point clearly illustrates why the Government and I must resist the amendment. We cannot allow a civil defence grant, which is specifically intended for civil defence purposes, to be entirely diverted from civil defence use into other worthy causes, such as entirely peacetime activities, which should be properly funded from other sources.

Mr. Banks: We have returned to the original point. Conservative Members seem to accept that, provided that the planning is essential to anticipate wartime emergencies, the benefit for peacetime planning is all right. But to get the benefit for the peacetime planning, we must accept the wartime planning element; politically, many Labour local authorities are not prepared to do that.
The Minister must accept that there is a connection in the other direction. If Labour-controlled authorities are involved in training staff for peacetime emergencies, as there are similarities between some peacetime and wartime emergencies, the Government receive the benefit of planning by the back door. But that would at least allow Labour-controlled authorities that do not accept that there is any legitimate defence against nuclear war to take proper steps to protect their populations from the tragedies that are likely in a modern world.
I shall not recount a long list of likely disasters that might afflict us in London. However, I am worried about the passage through my constituency of nuclear waste from the Central Electricity Generating Board. There have been several alerts in the borough of Newham, especially in Stratford in my constituency. On a personal note, an alert occurred not more than half a mile from where I live, so I have a personal interest in the matter. The fire brigade and emergency services were called out because it was believed that one flask was leaking. On both occasions, it turned out that it was not a radioactive leak but rain water, or so we were told.
I was not assured by the explanation when I asked the Secretary of State what had happened, that it was rain water, for the simple reason that somebody must have thought it was worth the emergency services turning up because there might have been a leak. If somebody had said, when he got the emergency call, that there was no point in turning up because the flask was clearly indestructible and could not have leaked, that would have been thought an irresponsible reaction.
When nuclear waste is transported through one's constituency, almost through one's back yard, one feels that it should be planned and that the local authority should be involved in the planning for a potential disaster. I do not know to what extent the London borough of Newham is equipped to deal with the passage of nuclear waste through its area. I should like to think that, under the terms of this amendment, the council would be able to put plans to central Government and get the funds that we need to train the staff.

Mr. Corbett: Can my hon. Friend confirm that local authorities generally find it difficult, if not impossible, to get information about the movement by rail of nuclear waste, and that that waste goes to a plant, now called Sellafield, which is not open for international inspection?

Mr. Banks: Local authorities are not so informed. That is why the need for training is so vital. I assume that local authorities are not told because of the secrecy involved. The Government may say that if they inform local


authorities, the news might leak out, there might be a terrorist attack on the train, and we would get the disaster that we have all been desperately trying to avoid. I understand the Government's difficulty in such situations. They have to balance the interests of security with the interests of providing information, but we think that they often fall down badly when providing the necessary information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington mentioned Sellafield, which reminds me of a rather amusing cartoon on the front page of The Guardian. Apparently, the Russians had got in touch with the British Government to ask for advice about dealing with the Chernobyl disaster and the reply was, "Change the name."
We do not get the information that we require about the passage of nuclear waste. If local authorities were given more information, even in the absence of funds from central Government, which the amendment would allow us to get, certain minimal protection could be afforded and planning steps could be taken to deal with the problem.
I regret that the Government have not seen fit to accept the amendment. It seems that in these days, when local authorities are being heavily penalised by rate support grant cuts and Government penalties on expenditure, it is almost impossible for local authorities to go in for the peacetime planning that they would want to undertake because of the absence of funds.
Last night, we had a magnificent result in the London borough of Newham. The council now consists of 60 Labour members with no Tories or alliance members. Newham is now a Tory and alliance-free zone. We should like to put up posters around the borough to that effect, but we do not have the funds. Unless the Government are prepared to accept the amendment and give us the money that is needed, neither my borough nor any other will be able to undertake peacetime planning, which is in the interests of people in my borough and throughout the country.

Mr. Corbett: I regret that the Minister cannot meet our points, although he has given us a slice off the end of the loaf. However, it may be for the convenience of the House if I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order far Third Reading read.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have discussed the Bill fairly comprehensively and I do not propose to do so again. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) has a valuable Bill to be taken after this one, and it is important that that should not run out of time on account of my being longwinded.
If Newham, North-West is now a Tory and alliance-free zone that will be at least as much in the constituency's interest as if it were a nuclear-free zone. I hope that the consequences will not be disastrous in either event and that both will be remedied in due course.
As I have said, the need for the Bill is clear in the light of recent events. The House will not need to look any closer at that in order to give the Bill its Third Reading.
I should like to thank all those who have assisted in the Bill's passage so far, particularly my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his staff at the Home Office, whose

assistance has been invaluable to me. I should also like to thank the sponsors of the Bill of all parties, most particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and his colleague the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), both of whom have given me great assistance and whose interventions and attempted amendments have almost without exception been designed to strengthen rather than weaken the Bill.
This is one of those almost unique occasions on which the House can unite in agreeing with the need for a Bill. I look forward in hope to seeing the Bill received in the other place and returning here without further difficulty.

Mr. Mikardo: Like the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) I am anxious that not only this Bill but that of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) have a successful passage within the next half hour or so and I shall be brief.
However, I am bound to say something as a matter of principle. I have one hesitation about the Bill. Its heart is in the right place. Its motives are good. It seeks to relieve the ill-effects of civil disasters. Nobody could complain about that.
In so far as there are civil defence organisations in Britain, and in so far as they can contribute to supplementing the work of emergency services—the police, the fire brigade and the National Health Service—and add something to the effectiveness of their work in dealing with civil disasters, every one of us would want it to have a fair wind.
I am bound to say, however—my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will join me in this if no one else will—that I have one niggle about the Bill. It gives a fig leaf of civil respectability to the nakedness of the notion that there is such a thing as civil defence against nuclear attack in war.
I shall not malign the hon. Member for Upminster by suggesting that that was any part of his motivation in introducing the Bill, but I am sure that some people will use the Bill to suggest that those who take the view that
there is no civil defence against nuclear attack and, therefore, that we should not be devoting resources to what is a figment of a heated imagination, are somehow unwilling to make a full contribution to the relief of civil defence.
I notice that on Second Reading even the hon. Members for Upminster and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), perhaps inadvertently, said things which support my thesis. In reply to an intervention about the possibility of a discharge from Sellafield, the hon. Member for Upminster said:
We have no adequate preparation to deal with a massive escape of radioactivity".—[Official Report, 21 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 592.]
If that is true of an escape of raidoactivity from a civil installation, it is a thousand times true of radioactivity resulting from nuclear attack. The hon. Member for Upminster has been tremendously honest. He reminded us that it took three months to clear up after the disaster at Flixborough.
Recalling the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the hon. Member for Dumfries said:
I accept that civil defence could do very little to mitigate that kind of disaster."—[Official Report, 21 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 595.]


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vicarage tea parties compared with what would be the consequences of an attack made with today's much larger and more horrendous weapons.
In so far as there are some institutions which could help the emergency services, I support the Bill. The big giveaway came from the Minister when he said that we can give money to one thing but not to another. It does not matter whether a child is killed because an enemy drops a nuclear bomb on us or because a tip slides down a mountainside at Aberfan. I do not understand the Minister's logic. It seems distorted and disgraceful logic and illustrates my argument about the pretence of civil defence.
Despite those reservations, I join those who welcome the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminister on getting to Third Reading, and I wish him well when he takes it to another and sometimes stormy place.

Sir Antony Buck: I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) congratulate my on. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). I also congratulate my hon. Friend. He has given retrospective credibility and exactitude to an argument that I have long used.
One of my arguments in favour of civil defence has been that it would enable us to deal with non-military disasters. With great acumen, and perhaps by probing Government Departments, my hon. Friend has found that, without legislation, facilities intended for civil defence would not be fully available to cope with non-military disasters.
His Bill will no doubt be known throughout time as the Bonsor Bill—it is always fun to get on the statute book legislation which bears one's name—and it repairs a fault.
I shall not detain the House for long as I am aware that it wishes to give its attention to other business. The Bill is commonsense in its approach. It will enable, without undue difficulty, the forces that are available for dealing with military warlike disasters to be used in a civil context. I shall not pursue the broader theme that was raised by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar. The reason for civil defence is to give credibility to the deterrent posture that we adopt, and that posture has now been properly tied in with civil emergency provisions. We should all be grateful to my hon. Friend for having tidied up our legislation in a commonsense way. From time to time the House deals with pure and unadulterated common sense and it is in that way that my hon. Friend's Bill can most appropriately be described. I congratulate him on what I anticipate will before long be the passage on to the statute book of the Bonsor Bill.

Mr. Corbett: I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) on what I hope will be the Bill's Third Reading. I wish it all success in another place, despite the reservations which I know he understands the Opposition have and which have been spelt out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo).
Having been privileged in succeeding to get a private Member's Bill on the statute book, I regret very much that when such Bills are published the promoters' names disappear from their face. That means that one relies on the memory of friends and colleagues in this place.
I welcome the way in which the Minister responded to my suggestion that there should be a full report on the way in which the Government have responded to the impact on the United Kingdom of the Chernobyl disaster. He will recall that six or seven days after we learnt of the terrible accident, the Department of the Environment opened an incident room. The telephone number of that room was given by the BBC's "World at One". A call was made and the response was, "We are just having a cup of tea." It turned out to be a room where drivers were assembled. It was reported in The Guardian that when another telephone number was given a terrified young woman answered the phone and said that she knew nothing about gamma rays. Another caller spoke to someone on the switchboard and was then shunted all round the houses and ended up, according to The Guardian, being put through to a 14-year-old ex-directory number.
The more serious point is that many of the telephone callers to the latest of the incident rooms at the Department of Energy—one might have thought it should have been involved rather earlier—asked specific questions about radiation levels. I am told that these callers have been referred to yet another incident room at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, where soothing noises are made but no figures are given. The Ministry monitors daily radiation levels in milk, water, green vegetables and pasture land, for example, but it publishes no figures. I hope that the Minister will see the sense of making figures available to back up the reassurances that are being given on behalf of the Government. Some fairly basic statistical evidence should be given to demonstrate what spokesmen and spokeswomen are saying, whichis that radiation levels are falling. We should have the figures for the past seven or 10 days.
Finally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster on taking the Bill this far.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The words used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) seem to me entirely apposite. The Bill is a small commonsense measure. It amends the 1948 Act, and the way that that Act is rooted in civil defence made it so difficult to accept the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), which would have widened the scope of the Bill.
It is a modest measure which will remedy a clear wrong, which is that expenditures that can be used jointly for peace as well as wartime protection are not subject to a provision that grant should be paid. That wrong has been put right and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir M. Bonsor) on doing it in this way and on taking the Bill through Committee and the various stages on the Floor of the House.
I wish the Bill speedy progress to the statute book through the other place. I trust that the House will give it a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Consumer Safety (Amendment) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2

POWERS OF COMMISSIONERS TO DETAIN GOODS

Mr. Conal Gregory: I beg to move amendment No. 1. in page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (1) and insert——
'(1) A customs officer may, for the purpose of facilitating the exercise by any enforcement authority or officer of such an authority of any functions conferred on the authority or officer by or under the safety legislation, seize any imported goods and detain them for not more than forty-eight hours.
(1A) Anything seized and detained under this section shall be dealt with during the period of its detention in such manner as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may direct.'.
As drafted, clause 2 would enable Customs officers to detain any goods for up to 72 hours. The amendment limits the maximum detention period to 48 hours, makes one or two minor technical changes and removes a technical inconsistency in the Bill, as reported.
Subsection (2) now includes a definition of "Customs officer" although there is no reference to that term in the clause or elsewhere in the Bill. The amendment rectifies that by introducing a reference to "Customs officer" in the new subsection (1). It also makes it clear that goods detained under that clause shall be dealt with
in such manner as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may direct.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am sorry that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) should have felt it necessary, under gentle persuasion from the Government Front Bench, to move this amendment. I do not want to go over the ground that we covered in Committee, although I suspect that I shall do so.
The Committee rejected a similar amendment on two separate occasions. Indeed, I suspect that the second vote was inadvertent rather than a commitment to the Government's case. Consequently, it is remarkable that the sponsor of the Bill should have to accept an unnecessary watering down of it. But behind the Minister's charming smile and smooth tones was the iron threat:
If that disagreement is not resolved during our debate, my hon. Friend's ambition to put the legislation on the statute book during the present Session may be in peril."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C; 30 April 1986, c. 5]
Thus the Minister said that for a mere extra 24 hours he was willing to consider wrecking a Bill that is accepted and welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, with the exception apparently of some members of the Government.
Some rather peculiar arguments were adduced in support of the Government's case that the time should be limited to 48 hours, not 72 hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) will find it incredible that our suggestion of 72 hours to inquire into teddy bears and imported dolls was rejected by the Minister on the ground that all those potentially unsafe toys would pile up at Britain's ports and so prevent our normal trade. It was a preposterous proposition, although he had the good grace to look shame-faced even if he did not sound it.
The Minister then decided that bigger guns were needed, and he called in aid the treaty of Rome, Brussels, the Commission and the whole paraphernalia of the Common Market against that extra 24 hours of inspection. We were told that giving an extra 24 hours would put us in breach of the rules. The Minister could not tell us why that was so, because he had not asked anyone. He admitted that there had been no consultation, and he did not know whether his own figure of 48 hours would be acceptable.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend or the Minister aware of what the French get up to by delaying things at ports when it suits them? They operate what is virtually a non-tariff barrier to imports. In one case everthing has to be routed through a little customs post in Poitiers and a long backlog builds up. In another case it is demanded that a container should not contain a mixed load, so every container has to be opened. It is nonsense to suggest that we should be inhibited by Common Market rules.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who was not able to follow the discussion in Committee. That is why I draw his attention to some of the peculiarities in the arguments. We told the Minister that if he happened to be in France, far from quivering at the prospect of being arraigned before the European Court, he would be donning his best suit to be presented with the Croix de Guerre and some kisses for having found yet another way of restraining trade from outside France. However, the Minister does not want heroism; all he wants is to capitulate to the commercial interests lobbying his Department.
The Minister said that the first two days were needed only to inspect papers. We never got to the bottom of the matter. He said that there would be no investigation, and he added that the preliminary inquiry would include
the identity of the importer, the likely destination of the goods and preliminary checks on any documentation, test certificates and so on.
That, apparently, is not an investigation in the Minister's parlance. The Minister said that it might be necessary for enforcement authorities
to make a telegraphic check on information from an exporter in a different continent or where weekends or public holidays make it especially difficult to obtain information quickly."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 30 April 1986; c. 12.]
We told him that weekends last for 48 hours and that 48 hours was all that the amendment allowed. We also said that, because of the time zones, another 12 hours had to be added because offices in other parts of the world might not be open. We argued that a gap of 60 hours was needed to have a reasonable chance of making contact. The Minister was unimpressed and unpersuaded.
The hon. Member for York is hiding his bruises. I understand that his arm was twisted. I am sorry that he submitted to intellectual torture, because the Bill is good and the 72 hours provision stood in its own right. As it is not our wish to do anything to delay the Bill's progress, but merely to highlight the sordid manoeuvring behind the scenes to diminish and dilute what started as a good Bill, until the Minister got his paws on it, I thought it worth enlightening my hon. Friends about how devious the Government have been.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): I am


grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) for moving this amendment, which corrects a technical inconsistency in the Bill as reported and, more importantly, reduces the maximum period of detention by Customs and Excise from 72 to 48 hours.
This is a relatively minor change but one which, in my view, is very important to reduce the risk of successful challenge to the Bill under article 30 of the treaty of Rome. This article prohibits measures which have the effect of restricting imports, and although article 36 of the treaty permits exceptions to this rule on the grounds of health and safety, any measures taken on those grounds must be strictly proportionate to the health and safety risk in question.
The Customs detention provision is not intended to be sufficient to enable enforcement authorities to subject goods to detailed scientific tests, but merely to allow them to make preliminary inquiries about imports, to arrive on the scene and, if appropriate, to exercise their own powers to seize or suspend the goods.
I had initially thought that 24 hours was sufficient—and, therefore, that a longer period would be disproportionate—for this limited purpose, but I have been persuaded by the strong arguments of my hon. Friend and of the National Consumer Council and local authority associations that up to 48 hours might be necessary to deal with the awkward cases. I am not persuaded that there is any case for increasing the period to 72 hours, which would run a great risk of being disproportionate to the purpose that it is intended to achieve. Therefore, I urge the House, in the interests of safeguarding the measure as a whole from successful challenge in the European Court, to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Gregory: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill is the product of my keen interest in protecting consumers from the consequences of dangerous and unsafe products as well as of my being successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills.
I realise the complexity of such a Bill. It contains 17 clauses and two schedules. Injury, and indeed death, can result from unsafe products. That is why it is vital to bring forward proposals outlined in the White Paper on the safety of goods. Each year, about 7,000 people die in home accidents, which is a greater number than those killed on the roads. Furthermore, an estimated 3 million people sustain injuries which require medical attention. That toll in human suffering cannot be allowed to continue.
Dangerous consumer goods, especially items that have not been checked for safety, contribute substantially to those appalling figures. The tragic consequences can be devastating—the death in Hull from an imported Polish light bulb and the death before Christmas of a five-month-old child in Leeds from playing with a far eastern toy pony.
Understandably, the media have highlighted the aspect of toys covered by the Bill, but the scope in consumer terms is much wider. It embraces all areas for which there

are existing consumer regulations, such as faulty electrical products, unstable pushchairs, children's nightwear and cosmetics.
I shall cite three examples of dangerous goods on sale. First, decorative table lamps containing tricholoethylene which has been banned since 1980, which caused the death of two young boys; secondly, steel splinters from imported hammers, which caused at least four people to lose their eyesight; and, thirdly, painted dolls which contain 120 times the legal limit of lead. This week, the BBC programme "That's Life" drew to my attention drinking mugs in the shape of dogs and birds which, it is understood, contain up to 20 times the permitted lead level. Those items were imported from Hong Kong.
The Bill implements important proposals in the White Paper of July 1984 on the safety of goods. I hope that in the autumn we shall hear an announcement in the Gracious Speech of a major consumer Bill which will cover the key element of a duty of safety, because that goes beyond the remit of a private Member's Bill.
Supported by the National Consumer Council, I have introduced a Bill which seeks to create new powers for enforcement authorities to act against unsafe goods at the United Kingdom factory gate and at the point of entry to this country. Instead of trading standards officers having to track down suspect goods at every conceivable retail point—an impossible task—they will be empowered to prohibit such goods getting into the wholesale trade.
Reputable traders will have nothing to fear, as they will have carried out safety checks before placing their orders. The Bill is aimed at catching the unscrupulous. That is why it has wide-ranging support from bodies such as the National Consumer Council, the National Federation of Consumer Groups, the British Standards Institution, the Confederation of British Industry, the Consumers' Association, the Welsh Consumer Council, the Scottish Consumer Council, the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the British Toy and Hobby Manufacturers Association.
In conjunction with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), we have all worked hard to produce a set of measures which, by promoting more effective enforcement of existing safety regulations without inadvertently punishing the innocent trader, will bring significant benefits to consumers and reputable businesses. There is provision for the payment of compensation in the unlikely event that goods which are suspended from supply turn out not to contravene safety regulations.
The Bill makes a timely and constructive contribution to consumer safety. It tackes an important problem in a realistic way. It is vital to protect life and limb. If the Bill becomes law during this Session, it will catch this year's Christmas trade.

Mr. Mikardo: I am glad to see the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) looking so cheerful this morning after the Labour party captured control of York yesterday. That must be causing him much worry when thinking about his role in the next general election.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said that the one changed provision was a result of arm twisting by the Minister, and so it was. The


first private Members' Bill debated last Friday was hijacked by the Government from the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters). The first private Members' Bill we considered this morning was hijacked by the Government from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). In nearly 40 years as a Member, I have never known any Government who behaved so badly to private Members and private Members' Bills. The Government escape their responsibility for introducing desirable legislation by letting private Members introduce Bills and then cutting them to ribbons and turning them into Government Bills. That did not happen as badly with this Bill as it did with the other two Bills to which I referred. Those two Bills were virtually completely different from the legislation to which the House gave a Second Reading. I hope that that undesirable practice will not continue much longer.

Mr. David Amess: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) on introducing this excellent legislation. He drew No. 20 in the ballot for private Members' Bills, which was hardly favourable. However, he has done everyone a great service by introducing the Bill, which is particularly welcomed by my constituents in Basildon.
The House will remember the publicity that my hon. Friend gained before Christmas with respect to various products. If the Bill prevents just on fatal accident, it will be more than worthwhile. I extend my heartiest congratulations to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Williams: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory). As he is well aware, we welcome the Bill's intentions, I think that the hon. Gentleman would be gracious enough to acknowledge that the fact

that it appears that the Bill will reach the statute book is due to the help he has received from Government and Opposition Back Benchers.
I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that, unfortunately, the Bill's career does not differ from his description of other Bills. The Under-Secretary of State tabled on the Order Paper motions to delete 10 successive clauses from the Bill. The Bill is no substitute for legislation covering the general duty on safety of goods, which is what we wanted, but it is welcome as an interim measure.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the Bill had had to be diluted because the EEC' said that the time taken for inspections had to be proportionate to the problem confronted. The hon. Member for York spoke of children facing maiming and possible loss of eyes or their lives. It is therefore ludicrous to suggest that the extra 24 hours—the hon. and learned Gentleman forced the hon. Member for York to delete that provision—would have made that much difference. We welcome the Bill, even in its weakened form.

Mr. Howard: Like other hon. Members, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) who does not seem to me to look like a hijacked person might be expected to look.
In response to the observations of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) about yesterday's elections in York, may I say that the relationship between an amendment which was moved this morning and the vole in Committee shows that provisional votes do not always provide a sure guide to the eventual outcome.
The Government intend to introduce a general safety duty as soon as possible. I commend the Bill to the House and wish it godspeed on its way to the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Obscene Publications (Protection of Children, etc.) (Amendment) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment proposed [25 April] on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Which amendment was, in page 3, line 17, to leave out `18' and insert '16', instead thereof.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: A fortnight ago I had just started to speak to this amendment when I was rudely interrupted by the ending of our proceedings. A week ago I endeavoured to continue that speech and again I was caught out by the Standing Orders. At that point—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH (UNIVERSITIES AND INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

RIGHT TO INTEREST BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

Orders of the Day — Swale District General Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Roger Moate: In recent weeks I have received more than 7,000 letters and submissions from individuals on the Isle of Sheppey. By any standards that is a heavy postbag. Indeed, the letters alone without the envelopes weight 22lb. Those letters have come to me because on the Isle of Sheppey, in my constituency of Faversham, and in the borough council of Swale, we face yet another threat, indeed a double threat, to our Sheppey general hospital.
The Medway health authority is planning to remove surgical facilities from Sheppey general hospital. That move has been opposed by virtually the whole local population. Many of them have opposed it and in writing it has now been formally opposed by the community health council. I mention that because I suspect that the matter will undoubtedly come before my hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State for a final decision. At the same time, we are faced with yet another threat, the possible closure of the Sheppey general hospital maternity unit. That arises not out of any plan of the Medway health authority but from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which is recommending the withdrawal of recognition of the training of junior doctors.
The people of Sheppey have fought long and hard to preserve their hospital. It is not a small cottage hospital but a 110-bed general hospital. Sheppey is a large community of some 40,000. It is an island linked to the mainland by a lifting bridge. Communication with the mainland is far more tenuous and difficult than most people in the south-east of England can begin to understand.
I make no apology for raising this issue again with the Minister. This is the fifth occasion in less than four years that I have stressed the need for us to maintain our local hospital facilities, at least until we have our new Swale district general hospital. In November 1982 I submitted a petition from 7,500 Sheppey people urging the maintenance of the general hospital until the new Swale hospital is completed. On 15 June 1984, I presented yet another petition signed by 6,500 people again urging that the maternity unit at the hospital and all existing facilities be maintained or improved until the proposed new Swale hospital is completed.
The Secretary of State's reply to that petition was very significant. On 12 July 1984 he gave me an assurance that there had been no decision to run down the maternity facilities. He stated that the authority did not envisage any change to present maternity facilities before 1990. On 20 January 1985 I had an Adjournment debate on resources for the Medway health district. Again, I stressed the need for our second district general hospital to be located in the borough of Swale. I stated then that the Medway strategy included a second district general hospital in the Swale area, and that there was an urgent need to commence planning so that building work could begin as soon as the capital finance was available. The key point is not that we expect money tomorrow, but that we expect some plans tomorrow.
In March 1985 I had yet another Adjournment debate, this time on the Sheppey maternity unit. I again stated that we must have our Swale district general hospital, but in


the meantime we had to ensure that our local hospital services were maintained and improved. That is the other part of the issue—if we cannot have our new district general hospital, we must have the Minister's and the Government's support in maintaining the widest possible range of medical services for this very large and often isolated community.
I stress that the proposed district general hospital has been part of the strategy plan for some time. The Medway health authority plan states that Swale hospital is still required and that it will be a long-term aim for the authority to develop in order to provide comprehensive hospital services for the population in the eastern part of the district. It also states that it is urgently necessary to build up the acute services of Sheppey hospital to provide the main eastern hospital base until Swale hospital can be afforded.
It is a tragedy, therefore. that the regional strategic plan for Medway says nothing whatsoever about the Swale hospital. The 10-year plan says nothing about the need for a second district general hospital. In that omission lies some of our frustration. It is fine to talk about these facilities for the long term, but to omit them from the next 10-year plan makes one wonder whether they will be included in the following 10-year plan, or whether we will ever see them at all.
It is clear that the South-East Thames hospital region does not envisage such a hospital this century. That is unacceptable to the whole of the population in our area. There is no planning in sight, there is no site acquisition in view, and, as, far as we can judge, there is not even the prospect of a full option appraisal.
I stress that we are not necessarily talking about new and major additional expenditure. We are essentially talking about the replacement of old fabric and the possible replacement of four—in some cases very old—hospital facilities. It may be that the assets available would in many ways compensate substantially for any additional capital expenditure. It worries me greatly that as a society we cannot plan, at least within a decade or so, to develop in a businesslike manner facilities that, generally speaking, most of the people involved agree are necessary.
Medway is the most under-provided district in the south-east of England. It has only 70 per cent. of its resource allocation working party target. Against that, we know that the district is to receive major capital growth of more than £35 million for the expanded Medway district general hospital. That is a programme of which we can and should be proud. No one is naive enough to believe that we can suddenly conjure up additional unlimited resources for a second district general hospital in the immediate future. But what is unacceptable to the thousands of people who have written to me, to the community health council and to the local elected council is that we should continue to run down the services in the eastern part of the district until new facilities are built.
What we need from the Minister is an assurance that he will resist any proposals—and I suspect that they will be coming to him—to close surgical facilities, maternity facilities or casualty facilities. They are not under threat at the moment. We want to be sure that the Minister will support us locally in resisting the closure of any such services. It is clear that it is my hon. Friend who will decide these matters because it is virtually certain that the local council and the community health council will

continue to resist the closures. They have a clear understanding of local hospital needs and are very much in touch with local feeling on these matters.
This is perhaps the most important point. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister raise with the region or Medway health district the possibility of bringing forward our planning for the new hospital? That is the key point. The hospital is part of our strategy. It must be an indictment of our system if we cannot get on with site acquisition and planning at the very least. We would warmly welcome a visit from my right hon. Friend. I promise him that it would be a friendly visit. A ministerial visit allows us to show how unusual the location of the Isle of Sheppey is, and how concerned local people are about the difficulties of communications to the mainland.
Recently, members of the community health council and the hospital watch committee demonstrated the difficulties facing people on Sheppey when travelling to the mainland, and just how impossible it will be if they are forced to travel even further for more of their hospital needs. For example, one of the propositions is that the day surgery should be transferred to Sittingbourne. which is a smaller hospital with fewer facilities than Sheppey. For that, one of the rules is that one has to be in hospital by 8 am. That is physically impossible by public transport from many parts of the Isle of Sheppey. Someone at Leysdown, at the eastern end of the island, would have to leave by 6.30 am, and still he would he late at Sittingbourne. It would be a difficult bus, train and then bus journey taking over two hours and costing nearly £5 for the return fare.
Travelling to the Medway hospital is worse. Again, the journey time would be well over two hours by bus, train and bus. The journey would be long and difficult. At one point there is just a four-minute transfer time from one train to another at Sittingbourne. That assumes that one is healthy enough to maintain a rigorous timetable and switch trains at quite a rate. But one would not he going to hospital if one was healthy. On a Sunday it would be literally impossible for residents to go by public transport to visit relatives in the hospital at Medway and get back again. The timings make it too difficult.
I do not believe that in trying to provide a caring Health Service and first-class medical facilities, which we are all striving to achieve, we are serving the community if we move the centres of excellence so far from the periphery that people cannot get there to receive humane and caring personal services, which, after all, is part of the process of cure. We all know the difficulties. In many ways, the solution is within our reach. It is to maintain our local facilities until such a time as the desirable goal of building a new local hospital can be attained.
For all those reasons, I have received 7,000 letters and submissions. I venture to suggest that few other hon. Members will have received 7,000 separate letters on a single issue, although that number of people might sign petitions. Opening most of those individual letters my self has been a sobering task. Many people have related personal anecdotes and stories about the importance of the hospital and the difficulties that they and their families would face. It is heart-rending to read what people say about the prospect of losing the large range of services at Sheppey.
That is why, once again, I have brought this proposition to my right hon. Friend the Minister. I ask him to try to cut through the planning and financial red tape and to make


it clear to the hospital authorities that it is unacceptable to continue to concentrate hospital facilities in the Medway area to the detriment of the people of Swale. We must maintain those local facilities to high standards even if it means a modest improvement of local facilities for the next decade, until such time as we can make the prospect of the Swale district general hospital come true. We do not expect miracles, but we expect sensible planning and compassion. We feel more and more that they are lacking from the long-term plans of the planning authorities.
Swale considers itself to be the poor relation in the poorest hospital district in the south-east. I warmly welcome the extra expenditure committed to Medway. It is wrong that people are misled into believing that there are wholesale cuts or that the changes are the result of cuts in expenditure. The reverse is true. Medway will have one of the finest, new hospitals in the south-east. It is unacceptable to my constituents that, parallel with the improved facilities, there should be a withdrawal of facilities from the hospitals of which they are so proud on the Isle of Sheppey and in other parts of Swale.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on having once again secured an Adjournment debate in which to raise matters affecting hospital medical provision in his constituency. This time, my hon. Friend has concentrated his debate on the proposed district general hospital at Swale. He referred to the proposed closure of some surgical facilities. My hon. Friend must recognise that certain procedures are laid down in law which must be followed in the case of closure proposals to which objection has been made by the community health council, and I assume that objections will be made in this case. It would be wrong for me to comment on a matter which will come before Ministers for decision. I assure my hon. Friend that the proper procedures will be followed.
I know that my hon. Friend is voicing the concern of many of his constituents about developments in that part of the Medway health district to which he referred—the Isle of Sheppey. He did so eloquently in an Adjournment debate last March on the Sheppey maternity unit. As a result of what he said on that occasion, the proposals were modified. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that as a sign that careful consideration is given to all the points that he makes.
My hon. Friend is well known for the role he plays in representing his constituents' interests. The 7,000 letters to which he referred are a tribute to him. I suspect some hon. Members—I would not be foolish enought to say where they sit or who they are—do not have 7,000 constituents who believe that it is worth writing to their hon. Member. My hon. Friend clearly commands much respect among his constituents, who believe that if they write to him, it will affect what happens in the future.
I shall not add to what was said by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction in response to the Adjournment debate last March about the Sheppey maternity unit. However, I should make it clear that the Government do not lay down in detail what should or should not be the pattern of service in different localities. Indeed, as soon as one thinks of the task that

would be involved and the burden that would rest on civil servants and Ministers, one would recognise that it would be impossible. Hospital provision, whether of a district general hospital or of a more specialist kind, must be planned flexibly in the light of resources available, of professional advice and of local circumstances and demand.
I know that my hon. Friend recognises that demands for health care are pretty well unlimited while most claims that are made on health care resources are desirable. He also recognises that resources are not unlimited and so priorities must be established nationally, regionally and locally. The demand and the need for a district general hospital in the Sittingbourne and Swale area is, I understand, fully recognised by both regional and district health authorities. The crucial issue is not whether such a hospital is needed but the timing of priorities and resources. My hon. Friend acknowledged that.
If Swale were the sole district general hospital development proposed for the Medway health authority, there would be nothing to debate. It would no doubt be more than halfway to completion. However, the development at Swale is one of two major schemes in preparation by the district health authority. Given that resources are finite, the authority's decision is that the phase III development at Medway—costing some £35 million at 1984 prices—should take priority. This decision rests firmly with the health authority, and was, I am advised, taken on three main grounds. The authority saw its first priority as providing a development which would substantially reduce the overall shortage of beds and services in the district. Development on a new site, at Sittingbourne or elsewhere, would require money to be spent providing back-up services, roads, stores, and so on, and thereby reducing the potential sum available for patient services. The greater part of the district's population—about two thirds—is concentrated in the Medway towns and understandably, the authority believes that that is where its present effort to develop services should be focused.
The phase III Medway development is expected to become operational in stages during the years 1988–89 to 1991–92. The early stages will result in the internal transfer of services, but the later stages will enable more work to be undertaken within the district with a corresponding reduction of work currently going out to other districts.
Once this is achieved, the Medway health authority, I hope by then more self-sufficient and better funded through its increased RAWP allocations, will be equipped to prepare for a second district general hospital development at Swale. As I have mentioned, the need and demand for such a development is well recognised. Inclusion of surgical beds, for instance at Swale, will make possible a rationalisation of acute services throughout the district and the phasing out of some of the older, smaller hospitals that are increasingly less able to provide a modern and comprehensive health service.
I know that the district health authority has the support of the local authority, the community health council, the regional health authority as well as that of my hon. Friend and his neighbouring colleagues who will be affected. Support for the Swale development is widespread—I know of no one who opposes it. Therefore, in principle, everything appears to be in its favour, the only problem being time and resources. Once the resources are


available, my hon. Friend can feel confident that the planned development will become a reality. However, I would be less than honest if I left any impression that I foresaw early action being taken. As my hon. Friend recognised, there is a long time scale. I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern that that timescale seems to be stretching so far ahead at the moment that people will not be able to think of there being a real plan but just a hope and dream for the future.
I shall pass on to the regional chairman what my hon. Friend has said, and in particular I shall pass on his desire to take the early steps, which might well be highly sensible when considering the time scale that must be followed for major developments of this kind.
I have also noted and been impressed by what my hon. Friend said about the need to deal with the existing services in the area so that they do not present real difficulties for the population who would be left with a declining service and only a long-term and distant hope for the improvements that all agree are necessary.
I understand the pressure and thrust of what my hon. Friend is saying. He is not demanding more money at the moment and he is not saying that another area should be denuded in order to help his own. I was grateful for his comments about the significant developments in the Medway district, and I also recognise his concern for the longer term on behalf of his constituents.
I suspect that my hon. Friend did not believe that I would have available in my hip pocket today a post-dated cheque or a promise in hard terms that the Swale district general hospital would be in the programme by a certain date. But once again my hon. Friend has performed a valuable service for his constituents by drawing the attention of the House to the problem, particularly by commenting on the transport difficulties that many of his constituents face. I shall try to ensure that all those matters are taken into consideration on any decision that Ministers have to make.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock.